: 
2 
b 
; 
; 


————— = 7 


BOOKS ON BIOGRAPHY 


PUBLISHED BY 


Gee PUTNAM Ses Oae 


New York. = 


BRIEF BIOGRAPHIES OF CONTEMPORARY STATES- 
MEN. Edited by THOMAS WENTgvVORTH HIGGINSON. 


Vol. I. Engiish Statesmen. By T. W. Higginson..... ..$1 50 
«“ JJ, English Radical Leaders. By R. J. Hinton..... 1 50 
“ TTI. .French Political Leaders. By Edward King.... 1 50 
“ IV. German Political Leaders. By Herbert Tuttle.. 1 50 

Or Four Volumes handsomely bound, in box, $6 00. 

“These volumes will be popular and nseful because they present these charac- 
ters from an American stand-poiut by those eminently qualified to see and appre- 
ciate the qualities which have lifted them into a world-wide prominence.”— 
American Journal of Education. 

“It is in the character of statesmen simply that the divers personages are 
exhib ted, but in this aspect they are without exception fairly and strongly por- 
trayed.”— Chicago Tribune, 

+ Bach one of these essays gives you a clear picture of the man, and a definite 
idea of the work he has done, and the place he fills in political history.—Cornedd 
Era. - 

TRANSCENDENTALISM IN NEW ENGLAND. By 
Ruv. O. B. Frotninacuam. Large octavo, cloth, extra, with 
portrait on steel, of the author. ..........2e sere eeees 2 50 

“The book is masterly and satisfying, and we think it is not too much to 
say that it will prove of lusting value to the student of history, of philosophy, 
of theology, and of sociology, for in all those fields transcendentalism showed 
itself capable of exercising an influence profound, if apparently transient.”— 
Appleton’s Journal. 

“Tt is a work that was needed; a history that waited to be written; a task 
which sooner or later some one must have attempted. ‘To say it has been per- 
formed at last by Mr. Frothingham is to say that it has been well performed. 
It is a book that should be in every library.”"—VPortland Press. 

“Tt isin a word, un inestimable coutribution to the history.of transcendent- 
alism in New England.”’—/Hartford Post. 

AUDUBON. ‘The Lire AND JOURNALS OF JonN J. AUDUBON, 
THE NATURALIST. 12mo. cloth, gilt top, $2.25; half calf, 
$4.00. 

‘ There is no book in our literature which leaves a more keen, adventurous 
sense of delight.”— Philadelphia Bulletin. ; 

WILSON. JamEs GRANT. SKETCHES OF ILLUSTRIOUS SOL- 
DIERS. Illustrated with Portraits on Steel and fac-similes 
of Autographs. 12mo, clgth, extra..... ....... caca «ed 

“Full of interest to the general reader, just in its criticisms of character, and 
oi great value as a work of reference.”—Vortland Press. 

PARKER. A DriscoursE ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO 
Reuicion. By THEODORE PARKER. New edition, with 
Introduetion, by O. B. FrorurnenaM, I2mo, cloth.... $1.50 


xt, Any of the above sent post-paid upon receipt of price by 
the publishers. 


\ Pon | Ply 7 ie 
b- PD eh SI y, 
| EN DZ ae 


Reece herPUBLICA TIONS 


cS f PUTNAM’S SONS: 


DODGE, THE PLAINS OF THE GREAT WEST, AND THEIR INHABITANTS 


A vivid and picturesque description of the Western plains of the American 
Continent, including accounts of the game, a careful topographical record, notes 
of emigration, &c., &c., and an exhaustive account of the life and habits of the 
Indians (both the “‘ reserved ” and the ‘t unreserved’), their customs in fighting, 
hunting, marriage, death, clothing, religious beliefs and rites, &c., &c., with some 
suggestions for the treatment of the Indian question. By RicHarpD IrvING 
Donvce,Colonel inthe U.S.Army. 1 lerge octavo volume very fully illustrated, $4.00 


Colonel Dodge has, during many years, held positions of responsibility on the Western 
frontier, and has enjoyed exceptional opportunities {>> obtaining an intimate knowledge of the 
life and habits of the Indians, and of the features of the great plains in which they live, and 
the record of his experiences and observations will be found not only most fascinating reading, 
but a trustworthy and authoritative guide on the subjects of which it treats. 


VAN LAUN. Tue Hisrory oF FRENCH LITERATURE, 
By Henri Van Lavun, Translator of Taine’s ‘* History of English Literature,” 
the Works of Moliére, etc., etc. 
Vol. .—-FROM ITS ORIGIN TO THE RENATSSANCE, 
Vol. IIL—FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO LOUIS XIV. 
Vol. I1I.— FROM LOUIS XIV. TO NAPOLEON III. (/u preparation.) 


8vo, cloth extra, each, $2.50. 


We have to deal with a people essentially spirited and intellectual, whose spirit and 
intellect have been invariably the wonder and adtniration, if not the model nud mould, of 
contemporary thought, and whose literary triumphs remain to this day among the most notable 
tandmarks of modern literature. * * Extract jrom Author's Preface. 


THE BEST READING. A CLASSIFIED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR EASY 


REFERENCE. With Hints on the Selection of Books, the Formation of Libraries, 
on Courses of Reading, etc. 35th Edition. Entirely re-written and brought 
down to August, 1876, with the addition of priced lists of the best books ‘in 
French, German, Spanish and Italian Literature. 8vo, paper, $1.25; cloth, $1.75. 


** By far the best work of the kind.”—College Courant. 


THE SELECT BRITISH ESSAYISTS. A series planned to consist 


of half a dozen volumes, comprising the Representative Papers of The Spectator, 
Tatler, Guardian, Rambler, Lounger, Mirror, Looker-On, etc., etc. Edited, 
with Introduction and-Biographical Sketches of the Authors, by JOHN HABBERTON. . 
Vol. IL—THE SPECTATOR. By Appison and STEELE. Square r6mo, 
beautifully printed, and tastefully bound in cloth extra, $1.25 
This series has been planned to preserve, and to present in a form at once attractive and 
economical, the permanently valuable portions of those standard productions of the Essayists, 


which, as well for the perfection of their English style, as for the sterling worth of their 
matter are deservedly perennial. 


Vol. 2. SIR ROGER DE COVERLY PAPERS. From The Spectator 


Qne volume, 16mo, $1.00. 

**Mr. Habberton has given us atruly readable and delightful selection from a series of 
volumes that ought possibly never to go out of fashion, but which by the reason of their 
length and slightly antiquated form there is danger of our overlooking.—Liberal Christian, 


‘ 
~ * Ray ie 
Toy eae Te 


a a Jone 
SEGS~ 


Eee ae smo sacle Ket. 
fcrfore Leh PIL a Tay eS aot day treacs 
Crccenery A; Mat A ak pagel fora hk 

ve SO fA GA. ob pimp fee Bi ale 


Anta defect ct os 


y / - : 
| ie gain ny a +f VI/ 


SOPHISMS 


OF 


PROTECTION. 


BY THE LATE - 


M. FREDERIC BASTIAT, 


Member of the Institute of France. 


Part I. Sophisms of Protection—First Series. 
Part II. Sophisms of Protection—Second Series. 
Part III. Spoliation and Law. 

Part IV. Capital and Interest. 


JRANSLATED FROM THE PARIS EDITION OF 18069. 


WITH PREFACE BY HORACE WHITE. 


NEW-YORK : 
Cie eens bee INE AMY SS 2 S'O NS 


1877. 


Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by 
THE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States, for the 
Northern District of Illinois, 


PRHEEACE. 


A previous edition of this work has been published under 
the title of ‘‘Essays on Political Economy, by the late M. 
Frederic Bastiat.” When it became necessary to issue a 
second edition, the Free-Irade League offered to buy the 
stereotype plates and the copyright, with a view to the publi- 
cation of the book on a large scale and at a very low price. 
The primary object of the League is to educate public opi- 
nion; to convince the people of the United States of the folly 
and wrongfulness of the Protective system. The methods 
adopted by the League for the purpose have been the holding 
of public meetings and the publication of books, pamphlets, 
and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost of publica- 
tion, and others given away gratuitously. — 

In publishing this book the League feels that it is offering 
the most effective and most popular work on political econo- 
my that has as yet been written. M. Bastiat not only en- 
livens a dull subject with his wit, but also reduces the propo- 


sitions of the Protectionists to absurdities. 


£OOR 


li PREFACE. 


Free-Traders can do no better service in the cause of truth, 
justice, and humanity, than by circulating this little book 
among their friends. It is offered you at what it costs to print 
it. - Will not every Free-[rader put a copy of the book into ~ 
the hands of his Protectionist friends ? 

It would not be proper to close this short preface without 
an expression on the part of the League of its obligation to 


the able translator of the work from the French, Mr. Horace 
White, of Chicago. 


Orrice or Tur American Fren-Trapre Leacus, 
38 Burling Slip, New-York, June, 1870. 


PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. 


Tis compilation, from the works of the late M. Bastiat, 
is given to the public in the belief that the time has now 
come when the people, relieved from the absorbing anxi- 
eties of the war, and the subsequent strife on reconstruc- 
tion, are prepared to give a more earnest and thoughtful 
attention to economical questions than was possible during 
the previous ten years. That we have retrograded in 
economical science during this period, while making great 
strides in moral and political advancement by the abolition 
of slavery and the enfranchisement of the freedmen, seems 
to me incontestable. Professor Perry has described very 
concisely the steps taken by vhe manufacturers in 1861, 
after the Southern members had left their seats in Con- 
gress, to reverse the policy of the government in reference 
to foreign trade.* He has noticed but has not laid so 


much stress as he might on the fact that while there was 


@ Elements of Political Economy, p. 461. 


lv PREFACE. 


no considerable public opinion to favor them, there was 
none at all to oppose them. Not only was the attention 
of the people diverted from the tariff by the dangers then 
impending, but the Republican party, which then came 
into power, had, in its National Convention, offered a 
bribe to the State of Pennsylvania for its vote in the 
Presidential election, which bribe was set forth in the fol- 
lowing words: 

‘* Resolved, That while providing revenue for the support of 
the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy 
requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage 
the development of the industrial interests o {the whole coun- 
try; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which 
secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remu- 
nerative prices, to mechanics and manufactrrers an adequate 
reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation 


commercial prosperity and independence.’’—Chicago Convention 
Pla‘form, 1860. 


It is true that this resolution did not commit anybody 
to the doctrine that the industrial interests of the whole 
country are promoted by taxes levied upon imported 
property, however ‘‘adjusted,” but it was understood, by 
the Pennsylvanians at least, to be a promise that if the 
Republican party were successful in the coming election, 
tlhe doctrine of protection, which had been overthrown in 
1846, and had been in an extremely languishing state 
ever since, should be put upon its legs again. I am far 


from asserting that this overture was needed to se -sre the 


PREFACE. ; V 


vote of Pennsylvania for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, or. that 
that State was governed by less worthy motives in her 
political action than other States. I only remark that her 
delegates in the convention thought such a resolution 
would be extremely useful, and such was the anxiety to 
secure her vote in the election that a much stronger reso- 
lution might have been conceded if it had been required. 
I affirm, however, that there was no agitation on the tariff 
question in any other quarter. New England had united 
in passing the tariff of 1857, which lowered the duties 
imposed by the act of 1846 about fifty per cent., 7. e., one- 
half of the previously existing scale. The Western States 
had not petitioned Congress or the convention to disturb 
the tariff; nor had New York done so, although Mr. 
Greeley, then as now, was invoking, more or less fre- 
quent:y, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish 
what is deftly styled the ‘‘ American System.” 

The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen 
years’ sleep, under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Repre- 
sentative (now a Senator) from Vermont. Latterly I 
have noticed in the speeches and votes of this gentleman 
(who is, I think, one of the most conscientious, as he is 
one of the most amiable, men in public life), a reluctance 
to follow to their logical conclusion the principles em- 
bodied in the ‘‘Morrill tariff” of 1861. His remarks 


upon the copper bill, during the recent session of Congress, 


’ 


vi PREFACE. 


indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of American 
industry which are engaged in producing articles sent 
abroad in exchange for the products of foreign nations, 
are entitled to some consideration. This is an important 
admission, but not so important as another, which he 
made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 
1867, in which, referring to the bank note circulation 
existing in the year 1860, he said: ‘And that was a 
year of as large production and as much general prosperity 
asany, perhaps, in our history.”* If the year imme- 
diately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was 
a year of as large production and as much general pros- 
perity as any in our history, of what use has the Morrill 
tariff been? We have seen that it was not demanded by 
any public agitation. We nowsee that it has been of no 
public utility. 

In combating, by arguments and illustrations adapted 
to the comprehension of the mass of mankind, the errors 
and sophisms with which protectionists deceive themselves 
and others, M. Bastiat is the most lucid and pointed of all 
writers on economical science with whose works I have 
any acquaintance. It is not necessary to accord to him a 
place among the architects of the science of political 


economy, although some of his admirers rank him among 


* Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-Ninth Congress, Part I, 
pf. 724. 


PREFACE. vi 


the highest.* It is enough to count him among the great- 
est of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, 
which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th December, 
1850, at the age of 49, was a serious loss to France and 
to the world. His works, though for the most part frag. 
mentary, and given to the public from time to time 
through the columns of the Journal des Hconomustes, the 
Journal des Debats, and the Libre Hchange, remain a mon- 
ument of a noble intellect guided by a noble soul. They 
have been collected and published (including the Harmo- 
nies Economiques, which the author left in manuscript) by 
Guillaumin & Co., the proprietors of the Journal des 
EHconomistes, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo. and 
12mo. When we reflect that these six volumes were 
produced between April, 1844, and December, 1850, by 
a young man of feeble constitution, who commenced life 
as a clerk in a mercantile establishment, and who spent 
much of his time during these six years in delivering 
public lectures, and laboring in the National Assembly, to 
which he was chosen in 1848, our admiration for such 


industry is only modified by the thought that if he had 


* Mr. Macleod (Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. I, p. 246) speaks 
of Bastiat’s definition of Value as “the greatest revolution that has been 
effected in any science since the days of Galileo.” 

See also Professor Perry’s pamphlet, Recent Phases of Thought in 
Political Economy, read before the American Social Science Associatiun, 
October, 1868, in which, it appears to me, that Bastiat’s theory of Kent, 
fn announcing which he was anticipated by Mr. Carey, is too highly 
praised. 


Vill PREFACE. 


been more saving of his strength, he might have rendered 
even greater services to his country and to mankind. 

The Sovhismes Economiques, which fill the larger portion 
of this volume, were not expected by their author to out- 
last the fallacies which they sought to overthrow. But 
these fallacies have lived longer and have spread over 
more of the earth’s surface than any one @ prior? could 
have believed possible. It is sometimes useful, in oppos- 
ing doctrines which people have been taught to believe 
are peculiar to their own country and time, to show that 
the same doctrines have been maintained in other coun- 
tries and times, and have been exploded in other lan- 
guages. By what misuse of words the doctrine of Pro- 
tection came to be denominated the ‘‘ American System,” 
Icould never understand. It prevailed in England nearly 
two hundred years before our separation from the mother 
country. Adam Smith directed the first formidable attack 
against it in the very year that our independence was 
declared. It held its ground in England until it had 
starved and ruined almost every branch of industry—agr* 


culture, manufactures, and commerce alike.* It was not 


* It is so often affirmed by protectionists that the superiority of Great 
Britain in manufactures was attained by means of protection, that ‘t ia 
worth while to dispel that illusion. The facts are precisely the reverse. 
Protection had brought Great Britain in the year 1842 to the last stages 
of pennry and decay, and it wanted but a year or two more of the same 
regimen to have precipitated the country into a bloody revolution. I quote 
a paragraph from Miss }Jartineau’s “ History of England from 1316 to 1954,” 
Book VI, Chapter 5. 


PREFACE. 1x 


wholly overthrown until 1846, the s me year that wit: 
nessed its discomfiture in the United States, as already 


shown. It still exists in a subdued and declining way in 


“ Serious as was the task of the Minister (Sir R. Peel) in every view, the 
most immediate sympathy was felt for him on account of the fearful state 
of the people. The distress had now so deepened in the manufacturing 
districts as to render it clearly inevitable that many must die, and a 
muititude be lowered to a state of sickness and irritability from want of 
food; while there seemed no chance of any member of the manufacturing 
classes coming out of the struggle at last with a vestige of property where- 
with to begin the world again. The pressure had long extended beyond the 
interests first affected, and when the new Ministry came into power, there 
seemed to be no class that was not threatened with ruin. In Carlisle, the 
Committee of Inquiry reported that a fourth of the population was ina 
state bordering on starvation—actually certain to die of famine, unless re- 
lieved by extraordinary exertions. In the woollen districts of Wiltshire, 
the allowance to the independent laborer was not two-thirds of the mini- 
mum in the workhouse, and the large existing population consumed only a 
fourth of the bread and meat required by the much smaller population of 
1820. In Stockport, more than half the master spinners had failed be- 
fore the close of 1842; dwelling houses to the number of 3,000, were shut 
up; and the occupiers of many hundreds more were unable to pay rates 
at all. Five thousand persons were walking the streets in compulsory idle- 
ness, and the Burnley guardians wrote to the Secretary of State that the 
distress was far beyond their management; so that a government commis- 
sioner and government funds were sent down withoutdelay. Ata meet- 
ing in Manchester, where humble shopkeepers were the speakers, anecdotes 
were related which told more than declamation. Rent collectors were 
afraid to meet their principals,asno money could be collected. Provision 
dealers were subject to incursions from a wolfish man prowling for food for 
his children, or from a half frantic woman, with her dying baby at her 
breast; or from parties of ten or a dozen desperate wretches who were levy- 
ing contributions along the street. The linen draper told how new clothes 
had become out of the question with his customers, and they bought only 
remnants and patches, to mend the oldones. The baker was more and more 
surprised at the number of people who bought half-pennyworths of bread. 
A provision dealer used to throw away outside scraps; but now respectable 
customers of twenty years’ standing bought them in pennyworths to 
moisten their potatoes. These shopkeepers contemplated nothing but ruin 
from the impoverished condition of their customers. While poor-rates 
were increasing beyond all precedent, their trade was only one-half, or 
one-third, or even one-tenth what it had been three years before. In that 
neighborhood, a gentleman, who had retired from business in 1833, leaving 
& property worth £60,000 to his sons, and who had, early in the distress, 
become security for them, was anor iae the works for the benefit of the 
creditors, at a salary of £1 a week. In families where the father had 
hitherto exrned £2 per week, and Jaid by a portion weekly, and where 
all was now gone but the sacks of shavings they slept on, exertions were 
made to get ‘blue milk’ for children to moisten their oatmeal with ; but 
goon they could have it only on alternate days; and soon water must do. 
At Leeds the pauper stone-heap amounted to 150,000 tons; and the guardians 
offered the paupers 6s. per week for doing nothing, rather than 7s. 6d. per 
week for stone-breaking. The millwrights and other trades were offeriag 
& premiun) on emigration, to induce their hands togoaway. At Hinckley, 


x PREFACE. 


France, despite the powerful and brilliant attacks of Says, 
Bastiat, and Chevalier, but its end cannot be far distart 
in that country. The Copden Chevalier treaty with 
England has been attended by consequences so totally at 
variance with the theories and prophecies of the protec- 
vionists that it must soon succumb, 

As these pages are going through the press, a telegram 
=nnounces that the French Government has abolished the 
@scriminating duties levied upon goods imported in foreign 
bottoms, and has asked our government to abolish the like 
discrimination which our laws have created. Commer- 


cial freedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Austria, 


one-third ef the inhabitants were paupers; more than a fifth of the houses 
stood emp\y; and there was not work enough in the place to employ properly 
one-third of the weavers. In Dorsetshire a man and his wife had for wages 
2s. 6d. per week, and three loaves ; and the ablest laborer had 63s. or Ts. In 
Wiltshire, the poor peasants held open-air meetings after work—which 
was necos-arily after dark. ‘There, by the light of one or two flaring tallow 
candles, the man or the woman who had a story to tell stood on a chair, 
and related how their children wero fed and clothed in old times—poorly 
enough, but so as to keep body and soul together; and now, how they could 
nohow manage to doit. The bare details of the ages of their children, 
and what the little things could do, and the prices of bacon and bread, 
and calico and coals, had more pathos in them than any oratory heard 
elsewhere.” 


“But all this came from the Corn Laws,” is the ready reply of the 
American protectionist. The Corn Laws were the doctrine of protection 
applied to breadstuffs, farm products, “raw materials.” But it was not 
only protection for corn that vexed England in 1842, but protection for 
avery thing and every body, from the landlord and the mill-owner to the 
kelp gatherer. Every species of manufacturing industry had asked and 
obtained protection. The nation had put in force, logically and thoroughly, 
the principle of denying themselves any share in the advantages which 
nature or art had conferred upon other climates and peoples, (which is the 
principle of protection), and with the results so0 pathetically described by 
Miss Martineau. The prosperity of British manufactures dates from the 
year 1846. That they maintained sny kind of existence pricr to that 
time is a most striking proof of the vitality of human industry uuder the 
bersecution of bad Jaws. 


e 


PREFACK. XI 


Italy, and even in Spain. The United States alone, 
among civilized nations, hold to the opposite principle. 
Our anomalous position in this respect is due, as I think, 
to our anomalous condition during the -past eight or nine 
years, already adverted to—a condition in which the pro- 
tected classes have been restrained by no public opinion 
--public opinion being too intensely preoccupied with the 
means of preserving the national existence to notice what 
was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a reawaken- 
ing are not wanting. 

There is scarcely an argument current among the 
protectionists of the United States that was not current 
in France at the time Bastiat wrote the Sophismes Hcono- 
miques. Nor was there one current in his: time that is 
not performing its bad office among us. Hence his 
demonstrations of their absurdity and falsity are equally 
applicable to our time and country as to his. They may 
have even greater force among us if they thoroughly, 
dispel the notion that Protection is an ‘‘ American 
system.” Surely they cannot do less than this. 

There are one or two arguments current among the 
protectionists of the United States that were not rife in 
France when Bastiat wrote his Sophismes. It is said, for 
instance, that protection has failed to achieve all the good 
results expected from it, because the policy of the govern- 
ment has been variable. If we could have a steady 


Xil PREFACE. 


course of protection for a sufficient period of time (robody 
being bold enough to say what time would be sufficient), 
and could be assured of having it, we should see won- 
derful progress. But, inasmuch as the policy of the 
government is uncertain, protection has never yet had a 
fair trial. This is like saying, ‘‘if the stone which I 
threw in the air had staid there, my head would not have 
been broken by its fall.” It would not stay there. The 
law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. 
Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by 
violating natural laws and natural rights—the right to 
exchange services for services—and then complain because 
these natural laws war against them and finally overcome 
them. But it is not true that protection has not had a 
fair trial in the United States. The protection has been 
greater at some times than at others, that is all. Prior 
to the late war, all our revenue was raised from customs; 
and while the tariffs of 1846 and 1857 were designated 
“free trade tariffs,” to distinguish them from those exist- 
ing before and since, they were necessar’ v protective to 
a certain extent. 

Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our 
industry—-as though industry would not diversify itself 
sufficiently through the diverse tastes and predilections of 


as though it were necessary to supplement 


individuals 
the work of the Creator in this behalf, by human enacts 


PREFACE |. x1 


ments founded upon’ reciprocal rapine. The only rational 
object of diversifying industry is to make people better 
and happier. Do men and women become betier and 
happier by being huddled together in mills and factories, 
in a stifling atmosphere, on scanty wages, ten hours each 
day and 313 days each year, than when cultivating our 
free and fertile lands? Do they have equal opportunities 
for mental and moral improvement? The trades-unions 
tell us, No. Whatever may be the experience of other 
countries where the land is either owned by absentee lords, 
who take all the product except what is necessary to give. 
the tenant a bare subsistence, or where it is cut up in 
parcels not larger than an American garden patch, it is 
an undeniable fact that no other class of American 
workingmen are s0 independent, so intelligent, so well 
provided with comforts and leisure, or so rapidly advanc- 
ing in prosperity, as our agriculturists; and this notwith- 
standing they are enormously overtaxed to maintain other ~ 
branches of industry, which, according to the protective 
theory, cannot support themselves. The natural tendency 
of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyes and 
ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, 
physical and moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the 
influence of legislation to stimulate it. 

It is not the purpose of this pre‘ace to anticipate the 
admirable arguments of M. Bastiat; but there is another 


theory in vogue which deserves a moment’s consideration, 


X1V PREFACE. 


Mr. H. ©. Carey tells us, that a country which exports 
its food, in reality exports its soil, the foreign consumers 
not giving back to the land the fertilizing elements 
abstracted from it. Mr. Mill has answered this argument, 
upon philosophical principles, at some length, showing 
that whenever it ceases to be advantageous to America 
to export breadstuffs, she will cease todo so; also, that 
when it becomes necessary to manure her lands, she will 
either import manure or make it at home.* <A shorter 
" answer is, that the lands are no better manured by having 
the bread consumed in Lowell, or Pittsburgh, or even in 
Chicago, than in Birmingham or Lyons. But it seems 
to me that Mr. Carey does not take into account the fact 
that the total amount of breadstuffs exported from any 
country must be an exceedingly small fraction of the 
whole amount taken from the soil, and scarcely apprecia- 
ble as a source of manure, even if it were practically 
utilized in that way. Thus, our exportation of flour and 
meal, wheat and Indian corn, for the year 1860, as com- 


pared with the total crop produced, was as follows: 


TOTAL CROP.* 


Flour and Meal, bbls. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. 
55,217,800 173,104,924 838,792,740 


* Principles of Political Economy (People’s Ed.), London, 1865, page 557. 


. + These figures are taken from the census report for the year 1860. In 
this report the total production of flour and meal is given, not in barrels, 
but in value. The quantity is ascertained by dividing the total value by 
the average price per barrel in New York during the year, the fluctuations 


PREFACE, xV 


, Exportation. 
Flour and Meal, bbls, Wheat, bu. Corn, 1 a. 
2,845,305 4,155,153 1,314,155 
’ Percentage of Exportation to Total Crop. 
5.15 2.40 39 


This was the result for the year preceding the enact. 
ment of the Morrill tariff. It is true that our exports of 
wheat and Indian corn rose in the three years following 
the enactment of the Morrill tariff, from an average of 
eight million bushels to an average of forty-six million 
bushels, but this is contrary to the theory that high tariffs 
tend to keep breadstuffs at home, and low ones to send 
them abroad. There is need of great caution in making 
generalizations as to the influence of tariffs on the move- 
ment of breadstuffs. Good or bad harvests in various 
countries exercise an uncontrollable influence upon their 
movement, far beyond the reach of any legislation short 
of prohibition. The market for breadstuffs in the world 
is as the number of consumers; that is, of population. 
It is sometimes said in the way of reproach, (and itis a 
curious travesty of Mr. Carey’s manure argument,) that 
foreign nations will not take our breadstuffs. It is not 
true; but if it were, that would not be a good reason for 


our passing laws to prevent them from doing so; that is, 


thon being very slight. Flour being a manufactured article, is it not a 
little curious that we exported under the ‘‘free trade tariff” twice ag 
large a per centage of breadstuffs in that form as we did of tho “raw 
material,” wheat? 


Xvi PREFACE. 


to deprive them of the means to pay for them. LHvery 
country must pay for its imports with its exports. It 
must pay for the services which it receives with the ser- 
vices which it renders. If foreign nations are not allowed 
to render services to us, how shall we render them the 
service of bread? 

The first series of Bastiat’s Sophismes were published in 
1845, and the second series in 1848. The first series were 
translated in 1848, by Mrs. D. J. McCord, and published 
the same year by G. P. Putnam, New York. Mrs. 
McCord’s excellent translation has been followed (by per- 
mission of her publisher, who holds the copyright, ) in this 
volume, having been first compared with the original, in 
the Paris edition cf 1863. A very few verbal alterations 
have been made, which, however, have no bearing on the 
accuracy and faithfulness of her work. The translation 
of the essay on “Capital and Interest” is from a duo- 
decimo volume published in London a year or two ago, 
the name of the translator being unknown tome. The 
second series of the Sophismes, and the essay entitled 
“Spoliation and Law,” are, I believe, presented im 


English for the first time in these pages. 
H. W. 


CuHicaco, August 1, 1869. 


meee Ty 


———__ 9s 


SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


FIRST SERIES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


My object in this little volume has been to refute 
some of the arguments usually advanced against 
Free Trade. 

I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. 
I merely advance a principle which I am anxious to 
present clearly to the minds of sincere men, who 
hesitate because they doubt. 

I am not of the number of those who maintain 
that protection, is supported by interests. I believe 
that it is founded upon errors, or, if you will, upon 
encomplete truths. ‘loo many fear free trade, for this 
apprehension to be other than sincere. 

My aspirations are perhaps high; but I confess 
that it would give me pleasure to hope that this 
little work might become, as it were, a manual for 


such men as may be called upon to decide between 
2 


2 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


the two principles. When one has not made oneself 
perfectly familiar with the doctrines of free trade, 
the sophisms of protection perpetually return to the 
mind under one form or another; and, on each 
occasion, in order to counteract their effect, it is 
necessary to enter into a long and laborious analysis. 
Tew, and least of all legislators, have leisure for this 
labor, which I would, on this account, wish to pre- 
sent clone drawn up to their hand. 

But it may be said, are then the benefits of fees 
trade so hidden as to be perceptible only to econo- 
mists by profession ? 

Yes; we confess it; our adversaries in the discus- 
sion have a signal advantage over us. ‘They can, | 
in a few words, present an incomplete truth ; which, 
for us to show that it is incomplete, renders neces- 
sary long and uninteresting dissertations. 

This results from the fact that protection accumu- 
lates upon a single point tke good which it effects, 
while the evil inflicted is nfused throughout the 
mass. The one strikes the eye ata first glance, 
while the other becomes perceptible only to close 
investigation, With regard to free trade, premaely: 
the reverse is the case. 

It is thus with almost all questions of politica: 
economy. | 

If you say, for instance: There is a machine 
which has turned out of employment thirty work- 
men ; 


INTRODUCTION. j 


Or again: There is a spendthrift who encc urages 
every kind of industry ; 

Or: The conquest of Algiers has doubled the 
commerce of Marseilles ; 

Or, once more: The public taxes support one 
hundred thousand families ; 

You are understood at once; your propositions 
are clear, simple, and true in themselves. If you 
deduce from them the principle that. . 

Machines are an evil; 

That sumptuous extravagance, conquest, and 
heavy imposts are blessings ; 

Your theory will have the more success, because 
you will be able to base it upon indisputable facts. 

But we, for our part, cannot stop at a cause and 
its immediate effect; for we know that this effect 
may in its turn become itself a cause. To judge 
of a measure, it is necessary, that we should follow 
it from step to step, from result to result, until 
through the successive links of the chain of events 
we arrive at the final effect. We must, in short, 
reason. 

But here we are assailed by clamorous exclama- 
tions: You are theorists, metaphysicians, ideolo- 
gists, utopians, men of maxims! and immediately 
all the prejudices of the public are against us. 

What then shall we do? We must invoke the 
patience and candor of the reader, giving to our 
deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficient cear- 


4 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


ness to throw forward at once, without disguise or 
palliation, the true and the false, in order, once for 
all, to determine whether the victory should be for 
‘Restriction or Free Trade. 

I wish here to make a remark of some impor- 
tance. 

Some extracts from this volume have appeared in 
the “Journal des Ecanomistes.” | 

In an article otherwise quite complimentary pub- 
lished by the Viscount de Romanet (see Moniteur 
Industriel of the 15th.and 18th of May, 1845), he 
intimates that I ask for the suppression of custom 
houses. Mr. de Romanet is mistaken. I ask for the 
suppression of the protective policy. We do not dis- 
pute the right of government to impose taxes, but 
would, if possible, dissuade producers from taxing 
one another. It was said by Napoleon that duties 
should never be a fiscal instrument, but a means of 
protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and 
say, that duties should never be made an instru- 
ment of reciprocal rapine; but that they may be 
employed asa useful fiscal machine. I am so far from 
asking for the suppression of duties, that I look upon 
them as the anchor on which the future salvation 
of our finances will depend. I believe that they may 
bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give 
my entire and undisguised opinion, I am: inclined, 
from the slow progress of healthy, economical doc- 
trines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to hope 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


more for the cause of commercial retorm fron: the 
necessities of the Treasury than from the force of 
an enlightened public opinion. 


6 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


1B 
ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 


WuicH is the best for man or for society, abun- 

dance or scarcity ? 
_ How, it may be exclaimed, can such a question be 
_ asked? Has it ever been pretended, is it possible 
to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of a man’s 
happiness ? 

Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily main- 
tained ; and I do not hesitate to say that the scarcity 
theory is by far the most popular of the day. It fur- 
nishes the subject of discussions, in conversations, 
journals, books, courts of justice; and extraordinary 
as it may appear, it is certain that political economy 
will have fulfilled its task and its practical mission, 
when it shall have rendered common and irrefuta- 
ble the simple proposition that ‘in abundance con- 
sist man’s riches.” 

Do we not hear it said every day, “ Foreign na- 
tions are inundating us with their productions”? 
Then we fear abundance. 

Has not Mr. de Saint Cricq said, ‘ Production is 
superabundant”? Then he fears abundance. 

Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking 
machinery? They are frightened by the excess of 
production; in other words, they fear abundance. 


ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY. q 


Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, “Let bread be dear 
and the agriculturist will be rich”? Now bread 
can only be dear because it is scarce. Then Mr. 
Bugeaud lauded scarcity. 

Has not Mr. d’Argout produced the fruitfulness 
of the sugar culture as an argument against it ? 
Has he not said, “The beet cannot have a perma- 
nent and extended cultivation, because a few acres 
given up to it in each department, would furnish 
sufficient for the consumption of all France”? Then, 
in his opinion, good consists in sterility and scarcity, 
evil in fertility and abundance. 

“ La Presse,” “‘ Le Commerce,” and the majority of 
our journals, are, every day, publishing articles 
whose aim is to prove to the chambers and to gov- 
ernment that a wise policy should seek to raise prices 
by tariffs; and do we not daily see these powers 
obeying these injunctions of the press? Now, tar- 
iffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quan- 
tity of goods offered for sale. Then, here we see 
‘newspapers, the legislature, the ministry, all guided 
by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in my state- 
ment that this theory is by far the most popular. 

How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once 
of laborers, editors and statesmen, abundance should 
appear alarming, and scarcity advantageous? Itis 
my intention to endeavor to show the origin of this 
delusion. 

A man becomes rich, in proportion to the profita- 


8 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


bleness of his labor; that is to say, 7n proportion as 
he sells his productions at a lugh price. ‘The price of 
his productions is high in proportion to their scarcity. 
It is plain then, that, as far as regards him at least, 
scarcity enriches him. Applying successively this 
mode of reasoning to each class of laborers indiyid- 
ually, the scarcity theory is deduced fromit. To put 
this theory into practice, and in order to favor ‘each 
class of labor,. an artificial scarcity is forced in 
every kind of production, by prohibition, restriction, 
suppression of machinery, and other analogous 
measures. 

In the same manner it is observed that when an 
article is abundant it brings a small price. The 
gains of the producer are, of course, less. If this is 
the case with all produce, all producers are then 
poor. Abundance then ruins society. And as any 
strong conviction will always seek to force itself 
into practice, we see, in many countries, the laws 
aiming to prevent abundance. 

This sophism, stated in a general form, would pro- 
duce but a slight impression. But tien applied to 
any particular order of facts, to any particular article 
of industry, to any one class of labor, it is extremely 
specious, because it is a syllogism which is not false, 
but incomplete. And what is true in a syllogism 
always necessarily presents itself to the mind, while 
the incomplete, which is a negative quality, an 
unknown value, is easily forgotten in the calculation. 


ABUNDANCE—SGARCITY. 9 


Man produces in order to consume. He is at 
once producer and consumer. The argument given 
above, considers him only under the first point of 
view. Let us look at him in the second character 
and the conclusion will be different. We may say, 

The consumer is rich in proportion as he buys at a 
low price. He buys at a low price in proportion to 
the abundance of the article in demand; abundance 
then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all 
consumers must lead to the theory of abundance / 

Itis the imperfectly understood notion of exchange 
of produce which leads to these fallacies. If we 
consult our individual interest, we perceive immedi- 
ately that it is double. As seiiers we are interested 
in high prices, consequently in scarcity. As buyers 
our advantage is in cheapness, or what is the same 
thing, abundance. Itis impossible then to found a 
proper system of reasoning upon either the one or 
the other of these separate interests before determin- 
ing which of the two coincides and identifies itself 
with the general and permanent interests of man- 
kind. 

If man were a solitary animal, working exclu- 
sively for himself, consuming the fruit of his own 
personal labor; if, in a word, he did not exchange 
his produce, the theory of scarcity could never have 
introduced itself into the world. It would be too 
strikingly evident, that abundance, whencesoever 
derived, is advantageous to him, whether this abun- 
8 


SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


dance might be the result of his own labor, of inge- 
nious tools, or of powerful machinery ; whether due 
to the fertility of the soil, to the liberality of nature, 
or to an inundation of foreign goods, such as the 
sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon 
his shores. Never would the solitary man have 
dreamed, in order to encourage his own labor, of 
destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, 
of neutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting 
back into the sea the produce of its bounty. He 
would understand that his labor was a means not an 
end, and that it would be absurd to reject the object, 
in order to encourage the means. He would under- 
stand that if he has required two hours per day to 
supply his necessities, any thing which spares him an 
hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives 
him this hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to 
his comforts. In a word, he would understand that 
every step in the saving of labor; isa step in the 
improvementof his condition. But trafficclouds our 
vision in the contemplation of this simple truth. In 
a state of society with the division of labor to which 
it leads, the production and consumption ofan article 
no longer belong to the same individual. ° Hach now 
looks upon his labor not as a means, but as an end, 
~The exchange of produce creates with regard to each 
object two separate interests, that of the producer 
and that of the consumer; and these two interests 
are always directly opposed to each other. 


ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY. Ai 


It is essential to analyze and study the nature of 
each. Let us then suppose a producer of whatever 
kind ; what is his immediate interest? It consists 
in two things: Ist, that the smallest possible num- 
ber of individuals should devote themselves to the 
business which he follows; and 2dly, that the great- 
est possible number should seek the articles of his 
produce. In the more succinct terms of Political 
Hconomy, the supply should be small, the demand 
large; or yet in other words: limited competition, 
unlimited consumption. 

What on the other side is the immediate interest 
of the consumer? That the supply should be large, 
the demand small. 

As these two interests are immediately opposed to 
each other, it follows that if one coincides with the 
general interest of society the other must be adverse 
to it. | 

- Which then, if either, should legislation favor as 
contributing most to the good of the community ? 

To determine this question, it suffices to inquire 
in which the secret desires of the majority of men 
would be accomplished. 

Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be con- 
-fessed that we have. each of us anti-social desires. 
Are we vine-growers? It would not distress ws 
were the frost to nip all the vines in the world 

except our own: this is the scarcity theory. Aye we 
iron-workers? We would desire (whatever right 


1 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


be tle public need) that the market should offer no 
iron but our own; and precisely for the reason that 
this need, painfully felt and imperfectly supplied, 
causes us to receive a high price for our iron: again 
here ws the theory of scarcity. Are we agriculturists ? 
We say with Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is 
to say scarce, and our business goes well: again the 
theory of scarcity. 

Are we physicians? We cannot but see that cer: 
tain physical ameliorations, such as the improved 
climate of the country, the development of certain 
moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushed to 
the extent of enabling each individual to take care 
of his own health, the discovery of certain simple 
remedies easily applied, would be so many fatal 
blows to our profession. As physicians, then, our 
_ secret desires are anti-social. I must not be under- 
stood to imply that physicians allow themselves to 
form such desires. 4am happy to believe that they 
would hail with joy a universal panacea. But in 
such a sentiment it is the man, the Christian, who 
manifests himself, and who by a praiseworthy abne- 
gation of self, takes that point of view of the ques- 
tion, which belongs to the consumer. As a physi- 
cian exercising his profession, and gaining from this - 
profession his standing in society, his comforts, even 
the means of existence of his family, it is impossible 
but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, 
his interests, should be anti-social. 


ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY. . 13 


Are we manufacturers of cotton goods? We 
desire to sell them at the price most advantageous 
to ourselves. We would willingly consent to the 
suppression of all rival manufactories. And if we 
dare not publicly express this desire, or pursue 
the complete realization of it with some success, we 
do so, at least toa certain extent, by indirect means; 
as for example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in 
order to diminish the quantity offered, and to produce 
thus by forcible means, and for our own profits, a 
scarcity of clothing. 

We might thus pass in review every business and 
every profession, and should always find that the 
producers, i thewr character of producers, have inva- 
riably anti-social interests. ‘The shop-keeper (says 
Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the 
extravagance of youth; the laborer by the high price 
of grain; the architect by the decay of houses; offi- 
cers of justice by lawsuitsand quarrels. The stand- 
ing and occupation even of ministers of religion are 
drawn from our death and our vices. No physician 
takes pleasure in the health even of his friends; no 
soldier in the peace of his country; and so on 
with all.” 

if then the secret desires of each producer were 
realized, the world would rapidly retrograde towards 
barbarism. The sail would proscribe steam; the 
oar would proscribe the sail, only in its turn to give 
way to wagons, the wagon to the mule, and the mule 


14 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


to the foot-peddler. Wool would exclude cotton; - 
cotton would exclude wool; and thus on, until the 
searcity and want of every thing would cause man 
himself to disappear from the face of the globe. 

If we now go on to consider the immediate 
interest of the consumer, we shall find it in perfect 
harmony with the public interest, and with the well- 
being of humanity. When the buyer presents him- 
self in the market, he desires to find it abundantly 
furnished. He sees with pleasure propitious seasons 
for harvesting; wonderful inventions putting within 
his reach the largest possible quantity of produce; 
time and labor saved; distances effaced; the spirit 
of peace and justice diminishing the weight of 
taxes; every barrier to improvement cast down; 
and in all this his interest runs parallel with an 
enlightened public interest. He may push his secret 
desires to an absurd and chimerical height, but 
never can they cease to be humanizing in their 
tendency. He may desire that food and clothing, 
house and hearth, instruction and morality, security 
and peace, strength and health, should come to us 
without limit and without labor or effort on our 
part, as the water of the stream, the air which we 
breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but 
never could the realization of his most extravagant 
- wishes run counter to the good of society. 

It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires 
granted, the labor of the producer constantly 


ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY. 15 


checked would end by being entirely arrested for 
want of support. But why? Because in this 
extreme supposition every imaginable need and 
desire would be completely satisfied. Man, like 
the All-powerful, would create by the single act of 
his will. How insuch an hypothesis could monies 
production be regretted ? 

Imagine a jesisiative assembly composed of pro- 
ducers, of whom each member should cause to pass 
into a law his secret desire as a producer; the code 
which would emanate from such an assembly could 
be nothing but systematized monopoly ; the scarcity 
theory put into practice. 

In the same manner, an assembly in which each 
member should consult only his immediate interest 
of consumer would aim at the systematizing of free 
trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure ; 
the destruction of artificial barriers; in a word, 
would realize the theory of abundance. 

It follows then, 

That to consult exclusively the immediate interest: 
of the producer, is to consult an anti-social interest. 

To take exclusively for basis the interest of the 
consumer, is to take for basis the general interest. 


Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this 
point of view, though at the risk of repetition. 

A radical antagonism exists between the seller 
and the buyer. 


16 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


The former wishes the article offered to be scarce, 
supply small; and at a high price. 

The latter wishes it abundant, supply large, and 
at alow price. 

The laws, which should at least remain neutral, 
take part for the seller against the buyer; for the 
producer against the consumer; for high against 
low prices; for scarcity against abundance. They 
act, if not intentionally at least logically, upon the 
principle that a nation as rich in proportion as wus in 
want of every thing. 

For, say they, it is necessary to favor the pr oducer 
by securing him a profitable disposal of his goods. 
To effect this, their price must be raised; to raise the 
price the supply must be diminished ; and to dimin- 
ish the supply is to create scarcity. 

Let us suppose that at this moment, with these 
laws in full action,.a complete inventory should be 
made, not by value, but by weight, measure and 
quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to 
supply the necessities and pleasures of its inhabit- 
ants; as grain, meat, woollen and cotton goods, 
fuel, etc. 

Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier 
to the introduction of foreign goods should be 
removed. 

Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let 
a new inventory be made three months hence. 

Ts it not certain that at the time of the second 


ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY. 17 


inventory, the quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, 
coal, sugar, etc., will be greater than at the first? 

So true is this, that the sole object of our protective 
tariffs is to prevent such articles from reaching us, 
to diminish the supply, to prevent low prices, or 
which is the same thing, the abundance of goods. 

Now I ask, are the people under the action of 
these laws better fed because there is less bread, less 
meat, and Jdess sugar in the country? Are they 
better dressed because there are fewergoods? Bet 
ter warmed because there is less coal? Or do they 
prosper better in their labor because. iron, copper, 
tools and machinery are scarce? 

But, it is answered, if we are inundated with 
foreign goods and produce, our coin will leave the 
country. 

Well, and what matters that? Man is not fed 
with coin. He does not dress in gold, nor warm 
himself with silver. What difference does it make 
whether there be more or less coin in the country, 
provided there be more bread in the cupboard, more 
meat in the larder, more clothing in the press, and 
more wood in the cellar ? 


To Restrictive Laws, I offer this dilemma : 

Hither you allow that you produce scarcity, or 
you do not allow it. 

If you allow it, you confess at once that your end 
is to injure the people as much as possible. If you 


18 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


do not allow it, then you deny your power to dimin- 
ish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently 
you deny having favored the producer. 

You are either injurious or inefficient. You can 
never be useful 


II. 


OBSTACLE — CAUSE. 


THE obstacle mistaken for the cause—scarcity 
mistaken for abundance. The sophism is the same. 
It is well to study it under every aspect. 

Man naturally is in a state of entire destitution. 

Between this state and the satisfying of his wants, 
there exists a multitude of obstacles which it is the 
object of labor to surmount. It is interesting to 
seek how and why he could have been led to look 
even upon these obstacles to his happiness as the 
cause of it. 

I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. 
But, between the point of my departure and my des- 
tination, there are interposed, mountains, rivers, . 
swamps, forests, robbers—in a word, obstacles ; and 
to conquer these obstacles, it is necessary that I 
should bestow much labor and great efforts in‘ oppos- 
ing them ;—or, what is the same thing, if others do 


OBSTACLE—CAUSE. OAS 


it for me, I must pay them the value of their exer- 
tions. It is evident that I should have been better 
off had these obstacles never existed. — 

Through the journey of life, in the long series of 
days from the cradle to the tomb, man has many 
difficulties to oppose him in his progress... Hunger, 
thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles 
scattered along hisroad. In a state of isolation, he 
would be obliged to combat them all by hunting, 
fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture, 
etc., and it is very evident that it would be better 
for him that these difficulties should exist to a less 
degree, or even not at all. In a state of society he 
is not obliged, personally, to struggle with each of 
these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, in 
return, must remove some one of them for the benefit 
of his fellow-men. 

Again it is evident, that, considering mankind as 
a whole, it would be better for society that these 
obstacles should be as weak and as few as possible. 

But if we examine closely and in detail the phe- 
nomena of society, and the private interests of men 
as modified by exchange of produce, we perceive, 
without difficulty, how it has happened that wants 
have been confounded with riches, and the obstacle 
with the cause. 

The separation of occupations, which results from 
the habits of exchange, causes each man, instead of 
struggling against all surrounding obstacles to com- 


20 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


bat only one; the effort being made not for himself 
alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in 
their turn, render a similar service to him. 

Now, it hence results, that this man looks upon 
the obstacle which he has made it his profession to 
combat for the benefit of others, as the immediate 
cause of his riches. ‘The greater, the more serious, 
the more stringent may be this obstacle, the more 
he is remunerated for the conquering of it, by those 
who are relieved by his labors. 

A physician, for instance, does not busy hele 
in baking his bread, or in manufacturing his cloth- 
ing and his instruments; others do it for him, and 
he, in return, combats the maladies with which his 
patients are afflicted. The more dangerous and fre- 
quent these maladies are, the more others are willing, 
the more, even, are they forced, to work in his ser- 
vice. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the hap- 
piness of mankind, becomes to him‘the source of 
his comforts. ‘The reasoning of all producers is, in 
what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor 
draws his profits from disease, so does the ship 
owner from the obstacle called distance ; the agricul- 
turist from that named hunger ; the cloth manufac- 
turer from cold; the schoolmaster lives upon zgno- 
rance, the jeweler upon vanity, the lawyer upon 
yuarrels, the notary upon breach of faith. Hach 
profession has then an immediate interest in the 


OBSTACLE—-CAUSE. 21 


continuation, even in the extension, of the particular 
obstacle to which its attention has been directed. 

Theorists hence go on to found a system upon 
these individual interests, and say: Wants are 
riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to well-being 
is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food 
to industry. 

Then comes the statesman ;-—and as the develop- 
ing and propagating of obstacles is the developing 
and propagating of riches, what more natural than 
that he should bend his efforts to that point? He 
says, for instance: If we prevent a large importation 
of iron, we create a difficulty in procuring it. This 
obstacle severely felt, obliges individuals to pay, in 
order to relieve themselves from it. A certain num- 
ber of our citizens, giving themselves up to the 
combating of this obstacle, will thereby make their 
fortunes. In proportion, too, as the obstacle is great, 
and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of difficult 
and distant transportation, in the same proportion 
will be the number of laborers maintained by the 
various branches of this industry. 

The same reasoning will lead to the suppression 
of machinery. 

Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of 
their wine-harvest. This is an obstacle which other 
men set about removing for them by the manufac- 
ture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, 
that this obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion 


p Add SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of the labor of the nation, and enriches a certain 
number of our citizens. But here is presented to 
us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, 
squares it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these 
together, forms them into casks. The obstacle is 
thus diminished, and with it the profits of the coop- 
ers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the 
machine ! 

To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient’ to 
remember that human labor is not an end, but a 
means. It ws never without employment. If one 
obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and mankind 
is delivered from two obstacles by the same effort 
which was at first necessary for one. If the labor 
of coopers becomes useless, it must take another 
direction. But with what, it may be asked, will 
they be remunerated? Precisely with what they are 
at present remunerated. Tor if a certain quantity 
of labor becomes free from its original occupation, - 
to be otherwise disposed of, a corresponding quantity 
of wages must thus also become free. ‘To maintain 
that human labor can end by wanting employment, 
it would be necessary to prove that mankind will 
cease to encounter obstacles. In such a case, labor 
would be not only impossible, it would be super- 
fluous. We should have nothing to do, because we 
should be all-powerful, and our jiat alone would 
satisfy at once our wants and our desires. 


EFFORT —RESULT, 23 


TIT. 


EFFORT — RESULT. 


We have seen that between our wants ani their 
gratification many obstacles are interposed. We 
conquer or weaken these by the employment of our 
faculties. It may be said, in general, terms, that 
industry is an effort followed by a result. 

But by what do we measure our well-being? By 
the result of our effort, or by the effort ctself? There | 
exists always a proportion between the effort 
employed and the result obtained. Does progress 
consist in the relative increase of the second or of 
the first term of this proportion? 

_Both propositions have been sustained, and in 
political economy opinions are divided between 
them. | 
_ According to the first system, riches are the result 
of labor. They increase in the same ratio as the 
result does to the effort. Absolute perfection, of which 
God is the type, consists in the infinite distance 
between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort 
none, result infinite. 

The second system maintains that it is the effort 
itself which forms the measure of, and constitutes, 
our riches. Progression is the increase of the pro- 
portion of the effort to the result. Its ideal extreme 


94. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


may be represented by the eternal and fruitless 
efforts of Sisyphus.* 

The first system tends naturally to the encourage- 
ment of every thing which diminishes difficulties, 
and augments production,—as powerful machinery, 
wkich adds to the strength of man; the exchange 
of produce, which allows us to profit by the various 
natural agents distributed in different degrees over 
the surface of our globe; the intellect which dis- 
covers, experience which proves, and emulation 
which excites. 

The second as logically inclines to every thing 
which can augment the difficulty and diminish the 
product; as privileges, monopolies, restrictions, pro- 
hibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. 

It is well to remark here that the universal prac- 
tice of men is always guided by the principle of the 
first system. Every workman, whether agricul- 
turist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or 
philosopher, devotes the strength of his intellect to 
do better, to do more quickly, more economically,—. 
in a word, to do more with less. 

The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, 
editors, statesmen, men whose business is to make 
experiments upon society. And even of these we 
may observe, that in what personally concerns them- 
selves, they act, like every body else, upon the 


* We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for the sake of 
conciseness, to designate this system under the term of Sisyphism. 


EFFORT—RESULT. 25 


principle of obtaining from their labor the greatest 
possible quantity of useful results. 

It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that 
there are no true Sisyphists. 

I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed 
to its extremest consequences. And this must 
always be the case when one starts upon a wrong 
principle, because the absurd and injurious results 
to which it leads, cannot but check it in its progress. 
For this reason, practical industry never can admit 
of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly followed by 
its punishment to remain concealed. Butin the 
speculative industry of theorists and statesmen, a 
false principle may be for a long time followed up, 
before the complication of its consequences, only 
half understood, can prove its falsity; and even 
when all is revealed, the opposite principle is acted 
upon, self is contradicted, and justification sought, 
in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in 
political economy there is no principle universally 
true. 

Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I 
have laid down do not predominate, each in its turn; 
—the one in practical industry, the other in indus- 
trial legislation. 

I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bu- 
geaud; but we must look on Mr. Bugeaud in two 
separate characters, the agriculturist and the legis- 


~ Jator. 
4 


206 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort 
to attain the double object of sparing labor, and 
obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers a good 
plough to a bad one, when he improves the quality 
of his manures; when, to loosen his soil, he substi- 
tutes as much as possible the action of the atmos- 
phere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he 
calls to his aid every improvement that science and 
experience have revealed, he has, and can have, but 
one object, viz., to diminish the proportion of the effort 
to the result! We have indeed no other means of 
judging of the success of an agriculturist, or of 
the merits of his system, but by observing how far 
he has succeeded in lessening the one, whilé he 
increases the other; and as all the farmers in the 
world act upon this principle, we may say that all 
mankind are seeking, no doubt for their own advan- 
_ tage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or what- 
ever other article of produce they may need, always 
diminishing the effort necessary for ehjainnig any 
given quantity thereof. 

This incontestable tendency of human nature, 
once proved, would, one might suppose, be sufficient 
to point out the true principle to the legislator, and 
to show him how he ought to assist. industry (if 
indeed it is any part of his business to assist it at 
all), for it would be absurd to say that the laws of 
men should operate in an inverse ratio from those of 
Providence. 


EFFORT-—RESULT, 21 


Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character 
of legislator, exclaim, ‘I do not understand this 
theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, 
and work more abundant.” And consequently the 
deputy from Dordogne votes in favor of legislative 
measures whose effect is to shackle and impede com- 
merce, precisely because by so doing we are pre- 
vented from procuring by exchange, and at low 
_ price, what direct production can only furnish more 
expensively. 

Now itis very evident that the system of Mr. 
Bugeaud the deputy, is directly opposed to that of 
Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. . Were he consistent 
with himself, he would as legislator vote against all 
restriction; or else as farmer, he would practice in 
his fields the same principle which he proclaims in 
the public councils. Weshould then see him sowing 
his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would 
thus succeed in laboring much, to obtain little We 
should see him forbidding the use of the plough, 
‘because he could, by scratching up the soil with his 
nails, fully gratify his double wish of “dear bread 
and abundant labor.” , 

Restriction has for its avowed object, and acknowl- 
edged effect, the augmentation of labor. And 
again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its object 
and effect are, the increase of prices ;—a synonymous 
term for scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its 


28 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


greatest extreme, it is pure Sisyphism as we have 
defined it: labor infinite; result nothing. 
- Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the 
oracle of the peerage in the science of political 
economy, accuses railroads of injuring shipping, 
and it is certainly true that the most perfect means 
of attaining an object must always limit the use of 
a less perfect means. But railways can only injure 
shipping by drawing from it articles of transporta- 
tion; this they can only do by transporting more 
cheaply; and they can only transport more cheaply, 
by diminishing the proportion of the effort employed to 
the result obtained ; for it is in this that cheapness 
consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments 
the suppression of labor in attaining a given result, 
he maintains the doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, 
if he prefers the vessel to the railway, he should 
also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle 
to the wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle ; for 
this is, of all known means of transportation, the 
one which requires the greatest amount of labor, in 
proportion to the result obtained. 

‘“ Labor constitutes the riches of the people,” said 


’Mr. de Saint Cricq, @ minister who has laid nota 


few shackles upon our commerce. This was no ellip- 


) tical expression, meaning that the “results of labor 


constitute the riches of the people.” No,—this 
‘statesman intended to say, that it is the intensity of 
labor, which measures riches; and the proof of 


EFFORT—RESULT. 29 


this is, that from step to step, from restriction to 
restriction, he forced on France (and in so doing 
believed that he was doing well) to give to the pro- 
curing, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, 
double the necessary labor. In England, iron was 
then at eight francs; in France it cost sixteen. Sup- 
- posing the day’s work to be worth one frang, it is 
evident that France could, by barter, procure a 
quintal of iron by eight days’ labor taken from 
the labor of the nation. ‘T’hanks to the restrictive 
measures of Mr. de Saint Cricq, sixteen days’ work 
were necessary to procure it, by direct production. 
Here then we have double labor for an identical 
result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured 
not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is 
not this pure and unadulterated Sisyphism ? 

That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister 
carries his idea still farther, and on the same prin- 
ciple that we have heard him call the intensity of 
labor riches, we will find him calling the abundant 
results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper 
‘to the satisfying of our wants, poverly. ‘‘Hvery 
where,” he remarks, ‘‘machinery has pushed aside 
manual labor; every where production is supera- 
bundant ; every where the equilibrium is destroyed 
between the power of production and that of con- 
sumption.” Here then wesee that, according to Mr. 
de Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, 
it was bécause her productions were too abundant ; 


30 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


there was too much intelligence, too much efficiency 
in her national labor. We were too well fed, too 
well clothed, too well supplied with every thing ; 
the rapid production was more than sufficient for 
our wants. It was necessary to put an end to this 
calamity, and therefore it became needful to force 
us, by restrictions, to work more, in order to pro- 
duce less. . 

I also touched upon an opinion expressed by 
another minister of commerce, Mr. d’Argout, which 
is worthy of being a little more closely looked into. 
Wishing to give a death blow to the beet, he said: 
“ The culture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, but 
this usefulness vs limited. It is not capable of the pro- 
digious developments which have been predicted of 
it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remark 
that the cultivation.of it must necessarily be con- 
fined within the limits of consumption. Double, 
treble if you will, the present consumption of France, — 
and you will still find that a very small portion of — 
her soil will suffice’ for this consumption. (Truly a 
most singular cause of complaint!) Do you wish 
the proof of this? Howmany hectares were planted 
in beets in the year 1828 ? 3,130, which is 1-10540th 
of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this 
time, when our domestic sugar supplies one-third of 
the consumption of the country? 16,700 hectares, 
or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares 
for each commune. Suppose that our -domestic 


EFFORT—RESULT. 31 


sugar should monopolize the supply of the whole 
consumption, we still would have but 48,000 hee- 
tares or 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets.”* 

There are two things to consider in this quotation. 
The facts and the doctrine. The facts go to prove 
that very little soil, capital, and labor would be 
necessary for the production of a large quantity of 
sugar; and that each commune of France would be 
abundantly provided with it by giving up one hec- 
tare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of the 
doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of 
production as an unfortunate circumstance, and the. 
regarding the very fruitfulness of this new branch 
of industry as a limetation to us usefulness. 

It is not my purpose here to constitute myself the 
defender of the beet, or the judge of the singular 
facts stated by Mr. d’Argout, but it is worth the 
trouble of examining into the doctrines of a states- 
man, to whose judgment France, for a long time, 
confided the fate of her agriculture and her com- 
merce. 

I. began by” saying that a variable proportion 
exists in all industrial pursuits, between the effort 
and the result. Absolute imperfection consists in 
an infinite effort, without any result; absolute per- 


* In justice to Mr. d’Argout we should say that this singular language 
is givon by him as the argument of the enemies of the beet. But he made 
it his own, and sanctioned it by the law in justification of which he adduced 
it, 


82 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


fection in an unlimited result, without any effort; 
and perfectibility, in the progressive diminution 
of the effort, compared with the result. 

But Mr. d’Argout tells us, that where we looked 
for life, we shall find only death. The importance 
of any object of industry is, according to him, in 
direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for 
instance, can we expect from the beet? Do you 
not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with capital 
and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar 
to all France? It is then an object of limited use- 
Julness ; limited, be it understood, in the work which 
it calls for; and this is the sole measure, according 
to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. 
This usefulness would be much more limited still, 
if, thanks to the fertility of the soil, or the richness 
of the beet, 24,000 hectares would serve instead of 
48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, 
a hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, 
to attain the same resuli—Oh!- then some hopes 
might be founded upon this article of industry ; it 
would be worthy of the protection of the state, for 
it would open a vast field to national labor. But 
to produce much with little is a bad example, and 
the laws ought to set things to rights. 

What is true with regard to sugar, cannot be 
false with regard to bread. If therefore the useful- 
ness of an object of industry is to be calculated, not 
by the comforts which it can furnish with a certain 


EFFORT—RESULT. Op 


quantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the 
increase of labor which it requires in order to furnish 
a certain quantity of comforts, it is evident that we 
ought to desire, that each acre of land should pro- 
duce little corn, and that each grain of corn should 
furnish little nutriment; in other words, that our 
territory should be sterile enough to require a con- 
siderably larger proportion of soil, capital, and 
labor to nourish its population. The demand for 
human labor could not fail to be in direct proportion 
to this sterility, and then truly would the wishes of 
Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d’Argout 
be satisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, 
and France would be rich—rich according to the 
understanding of these gentlemen. 

All that we could have further to hope for, would ° 
be, that human intellect might sink and become 
extinct; for, while intellect exists, it can but 
‘seek continually to increase the proportion of the end 
to the means ; of the product to the labor. Indeed it 
is in this continuous effort, and in this alone, that 
intellect consists. 

Sisyphism has then been the doctrine of all those 
who have been intrusted with the regulation of the 
industry of our country. It would not be just to 
reproach them with this; for this principle becomes 
that of our ministry, only because it prevails in the 
chambers; it prevails in the chambers, only because 
itis sent there by the electoral body ; and the elec- 


34 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


toral body is imbued with it, only because public 
opinion is filled with it to repletion. 

Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse such men 
as Messrs. Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint Cricq, and d’Ar- 
gout, of being absolutely and always Svsyphists, 
Very certainly they are not such in their personal 
transactions ; very certainly each one of them will 
procure for himself by barter, what by direct produc- 
tion would be attainable only at a higher price. 
But I maintain that they are Sisyphisis when they 
prevent the country from acting upon the same 


principle. 


IV. 


EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 


Tris said 0. 7... but, for fear of being accused 
of manufacturing Sophisms for the mouths of the 
protectionists, I will allow one of their most able 
reasoners to speak for himself. 

“Tt is our belief that protection should correspond 
to, should be the representation of, the difference 
which exists between the price of an article of 
home production and a similar article of foreign 
Produciwons. 6.572%. A. protecting duty calculated 
upon such a basis does nothing more than secure 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 30 


iresecompetition 63... free competition can only 
exist where there is an equality in the facilities of 
production. Ina horse-race the load which each 
horse carries is weighed and all advantages equal- 
ized ; otherwise there could be no competition. In 
commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, 
he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monop- 
Oristes 045 Suppress the protection which repre- 
sents the difference of price according. to each, and 
foreign productions must immediately inundate and 
obtain the monopoly of our market.”* 

“ Hvery one ought to wish, for his own sake and 
for that of the community, that the productions of 
the country should be protected against foreign com- 
petition, whenever the latter may be able to undersell 
the former.” + 

This argument is constantly recurring in all writ- 
ings of the protectionist school. It is my intention 
to make a careful investigation of its merits, and I 
must begin by soliciting the attention and the 
patience of the reader. I will first examine into 
the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, 
and afterwards into those which are caused by 
diversity of taxes. 

Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor 
protection, taking part with the producer. Let us 
consider the case of the unfortunate-consumer, who 


* M. le Vicomte de Romanet. 
t Mathieu de Dombasle. 


36 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


seems to have entirely escaped their attention. 
They compare the field of production to the turf 
But on the turf, the race is at once a means and an 
end. The public has no interest in the struggle, 
independent of-the struggle itself When your 
horses are started in the course with the single object 
of determining which is the best runner, nothing is 
more natural than that their burdens should be 
equalized. But if your object were to send an 
important and critical piece of intelligence, could 
you without incongruity place obstacles to the speed 
of that one whose fleetness would secure the best 
means of attaining your end? And yet this is your 
course in relation to industry. You forget the end 
aimed at, which is the well-being of the community. 

But we cannot lead our opponents to look at 
things from our point of view, let us now take 
theirs; let us examine the question as producers. 

I will seek to prove 

1. That equalizing the facilities of production is 
to attack the foundations of ‘all trade. 

2. That it is not true that the labor of one coun- 
try can be crushed by the competition of more 
favored climates. 

3.. That, even were this the case, protective duties 
cannot equalize the facilities of production. 

4, That freedom of trade equalizes these condi- 
tions as much as possible; and 
5. That the countries which are the least favored 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 87 


by nature are those eich profit most by freedom 
of trade. 

I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, 
is not only the shackling of certain articles of com- 
merce, but it is the attacking of the system of 
mutual exchange in its very foundation principle. 
For this system is based precisely upon the very 
diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon 
the inequalities of fertility, climate; temperature, 
capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render 
null. If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and 
Brittany sends corn to Guyenne, it is because these 
two provinces are, from different circumstances, | 
induced to turn their attention to the production of 
different articles. Is there any other rule for inter- 

national exchanges? Again, to bring against such 
exchanges the very inequalities of condition which 
_ excite and explain them, is to attack them in their 
very cause of being. The protective system, closely 
followed up, would bring men to live like snails, in 
a state of complete isolation. In.short, thereis not — 
une of its Sophisms, which if carried through by 
vigorous deductions, would not end in destruction 
and annihilation. 

II. Itis not true that the unequal facility of pro- 
duction, in two similar branches of industry, should 
necessarily cause the destruction of the one which 
is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse 
gains the prize, the other loses it; but when twa 


38 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


horses work to produce any useful article, each pio- 
duces in proportion to his strength; and because 
the stronger is the more useful, it does not follow 
that the weaker is good for nothing. Wheat is cul- 
tivated in every department of France, although 
there are great differences in the degree of fertility 
existing among them. If it happens that there be 
one which does not cultivate it, it is because, even 
to itself, such cultivation is not useful. Analogy 
will show us, that under the influence of an 
unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differ- 
ences, wheat would be produced in every kingdom 
of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon 
entirely the cultivation of it, this would only be, 
because it would be her wnlerest to employ otherwise 
her jands, her capital, and her labor. And why 
does not the fertility of one department paralyze 
the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored 
one? Because the phenomena of political economy 
have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, a 
self-leveling power, which seems to escape the atten- 
tion of the school of protectionists. They accuse 
us of being theorists, but it is themselves who are 
theorists to asupreme degree, if being theoretic con- 
sists in building up systems upon the experience of 
a single fact, instead of profiting by the experience 
of a series of facts. = In the above example, it is the 
difference in the value of lands, which compensates 
for the difference in their fertility. Your field pro 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRCGDUCTION. 39 


duces three times as much as mine. Yes. But it 
has cost you three times as much, and therefore I can 
still compete with you: this is the sole mystery. 
And observe how the advantage on one point leads 
to disadvantage on the other. Precisely because 
your soil is more fruitful, itis more dear. It is not 
accidentally but necessurily that the equilibrium is 
established, or at least inclines to establish itself; 
and can it be denied that perfect freedom in 
exchanges is, of all the systems, the one which 
favors this tendency? 

I have cited an agricultural example; I might 
as easily have taken one from-any trade. There 
are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent 
tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter 
have to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher 
price for furniture, workmen, and food. But their 
customers are sufficiently numerous not only to 
re-establish the balance, but also to make it lean on 
their side. 

When therefore the question is about equalizing 
the advantages of labor, it would be well to consider 
whether the natural freedom of exchange is not the 
best umpire. 

This self-leveling faculty of political phenomena 
is SO Important, and at the same time so well calcu- 
lated to cause us to admire the providential wisdom 
which presides over the equalizing government of 


40 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


society, that I must ask permission a little longer, 
to turn to it the attention of the reader. 

The protectionists say, Such a nation has the 
advantage over us, in being able to procure cheaply, 
coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is po for us 
to compete with it. 

We must examine the proposition under other 
aspects. For the present, I stop at the question, 
whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are 
placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in them- 
selves, the former a descending, the latter an ascend- 
ing power, which must end by placing them ina 
just equilibrium. 

Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has 
every advantage over B; you thence conclude that 
labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be 
abandoned. A, you. say, sells much more than it 
buys; B buys more than it sells. I might dispute 
this, but I will meet you upon your own ground, 

In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand 
in A, soon rises in value; while labor, iron, coal, 
lands, food, capital, all being little sought after in B, 
soon fall in price. 

Again: A being always selling and B always 
buying, cash passes from B to A. It is abundant 
in A—very scarce in B. | 

But where there is abundance of cash, it follows 
that.in all purchases a large proportion of it will be 
needed. Then in A, real dearness, which proceeds 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 41 


from avery active demand, is added to nominal 
dearness, the consequence of a superabundance of 
the precious metals. 

Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary 
for each purchase. Then in B, a nominal cheapness 
is combined with real cheapness. 

Under these circumstances, industry will: have 
the strongest possible motives for deserting A, to 
establish itself in B. | 

Now, to return to what would be the true course 
of things. As the progress of such events is always 
gradual, industry from its nature being opposed to 
sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waiting 
‘the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself 
between A and B, according to the laws of supply 
and demand; that is to say, according to the laws 
of justice and usefulness. 

I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I 
say, that were it possible that industry should con- 
centrate itself upon a single point, there must, from 
its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an 
irresistible power of decentralization. 

We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the 
Chamber of Commerce at Manchester (the figures 
brought into his demonstration are suppressed) : ; 

‘Formerly we exported goods; this exportation 
gave way to that of thread for the manufacture of 
goods; later, instead of thread, we exported ma- 
chinery for the making of thread; then capital for 


42, SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


the construction of machinery ; and lastly, workmen 
and talent, which are the source of capital. All 
these elements of labor have, one after the other, 
transferred themselves to other points, where their 
profits were increased, and where the means of sub- 
sistence being less difficult to obtain, life is main- 
tained ata less cost. There are at present to be 
seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and 
Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, found- 
ed entirely by English capital, worked by English 
labor, and directed by English talent.” 

We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather 
Providence, with more wisdom and foresight than 
the narrow rigid system of the protectionists can 
suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, 
the monopoly of advantages, from which they draw 
their arguments as from an absolute and irremedia- 
ble fact. It has, by means as simple as they are 
infallible, provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual 
dependence, and simultaneous progress; all of 
which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is 
in their power, by their tendency towards the isola- 
tion of nations. By this means they render much 
more decided the differences existing in the condi- 
tions of production; they check the self-leveling 
power of industry, prevent fusion of interests, and 
fence in each nation within its own peculiar advan. 
tages and disadvantages. 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 43 


Ill. To say that by a protective law the condi- 
tions of production are equalized, is to disguise an 
error under false terms. It is not true that an im- 
port duty equalizes the conditions of production. 
These remain after the imposition of the duty just 
as they were before. ‘The most that the law can do 
is to equalize the conditions of sale. If it should be 
said that I am playing upon words, I retort the ac-: 
cusation upon my adversaries. It is for them to 
prove that production and sale are synonymous terms, 
which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse 
them, if not of playing upon words, at least of con- 
founding them. 

Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. 

Suppose that several Parisian speculators should 
determine to devote themselves to the production of 
oranges. They know that the oranges of Portugal 
can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account 
of the boxes, hot-houses, etc., which are necessary to 
ward against the severity of our climate, it is imposst- 
ble to raise them at less than a franc apiece. They 
accordingly démand a duty of ninety centimes upon 
Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say 
they, the conditions of production will be equalized. 
The legislative body, yielding as usual to this argu- _ 
ment, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each 
foreign orange. 

Now I say that the relative conditions of produe- 
tion are in no wise changed. The law can take noth- 


44 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


ing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the 
severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing 
to mature themselves naturally on the banks of the 
Tagus, and artificially upon those of the Seine, must 
continue to require for their production much more 
labor on the latter than the former. The law can 
only equalize the conditions of sale. It is evident that 
while the Portuguese sell their oranges at a franc 
apiece, the ninety centimes which go to pay the tax 
are taken from the French consumer. Now look at 
the whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portu- 
guese orange, the country loses nothing; for the. 
ninety centimes which the consumer pays to satisfy 
the tax, enter into the treasury. ‘There is improper 
distribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange 
consumed, there wil’ _fabout ninety centimes lost; 
for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the 
seller just as certainly does not gain them, for even 
according to the hypothesis, he will receive only the 
price of production. I will leave it to the protec- 
tionists to draw their conclusion. 

IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction 
between the conditions of production and those of 
sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists may consider 
as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they 
will consider as a, still stranger paradox. This is: 
If you really wish to equalize the facilities of pro- 
duction, leave trade free. 

This may surprise the protectionists; but let me 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 45 


entreat them to listen, if it be only through curiosity, 
to the endof myargument. Itshallnotbelong. I 
will now take it up where we left off. 

If we suppose for the moment, that the commen 
and daily profits of each Frenchman amount to one 
franc, it will indisputably follow that to produce an 
orange by direct labor in France, one day’s work, or 
its equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the 
cost of a Portuguese orange, only one-tenth of this 
day’s labor is required; which means simply this, 
that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does at Paris. 
Now isit not evident, that if I can produce an orange, 
or, what is the same thing, the means of buying it, 
with one-tenth of a day’s labor, Iam placed exactly 
in the same condition as the Portuguese producer 
himself, excepting the expense of the transportation ? 
It is then certain that freedom of commerce equal- 
izes the conditions of production direct or indirect, 
as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it 
leaves but the one inevitable difference, that of 
transportation. 

I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities 
for attaining enjoyments, comforts, and general con- 
sumption; the last an object whichis, it would seem, 
quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless all impor- | 
tant; since consumption is the main object of all 
our industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, | 
we would enjoy here the results of the Portuguese 
sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants 


46 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of Havre, would have in their reach, as well as those 
of London, and with the same facilities, the advan- 
tages which nature has in a mineralogical point of 
view conferred upon Newcastle. 

The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxi- 
cal humor, for I go farther still. Isay, and I sincere- 
ly believe, that if any two countries are placed in un- 
~ equal circumstances as to advantages of production, 
that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, 
will gain most by freedom of commerce. ‘To prove this, 
I shall be obliged to turn somewhat aside from the 
form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I 
will do so, however; first, because the question in 
_ discussion turns upon this point; and again, because 
it will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law 
of political economy of the highest importance, and 
which, well understood, seems to me to be destined 
to lead back to this science all those sects which, in 
our days, are seeking in the land of chimeras that 
' social harmony which they have been unable to dis- 
cover in nature. I speak of the law of consump- 
tion, which the majority of political economists may 
well be reproached with having too much neglected. 

Consumption is the end, the final cause, of all the 
phenomena of political economy, and, consequently, 
in it ig found their final solution. 

No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can 
be arrested permanently upon the producer. The 
advantages and the disadvantages, which, from hig 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 47 


relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally 
pass gradually from him, with an almost insensible 
tendency to be absorbed and fused into the commu- 
nity at large; the community considered as con- 
sumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause 
and its effects, and he who shall succeed in making 
it well understood, will have a right to say, “I have 
not, in my passage oven the world, piarechon to 
pay my tribute to society.” 

Every circumstance which favors the work of pro- 
duction is of course hailed with joy by the producer, 
for its wmmediate effect is to enable him to render 
greater services to the community, and to exact from 
it a greater remuneration. Hvery circumstance 
which injures production, must equally be the source 
of uneasiness to him; for its ammediate effect is to 
diminish his services, and consequently his remu- 
neration. ‘This is a fortunate and necessary law of 
nature. The immediate good or evil of favorable 
or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the pro- 
ducer, in order to influence him invincibly to seek the 
one and to avoid the other. 

Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the 
immediate benefit of this success is received by him. 
This again is necessary, to determine him to devote 
his attention toit. Itisalso just; because itis just 
that an effort crowned with success should bring its 
own reward. 

But these effects, good and bad, although perma: 


48 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


nent in themselves, are not so as regards the producer. 
If they had been so, a principle of progressive and 
consequently infinite zrequality would have been in- 
troduced among men. This good, and this evil, both 
therefore pass on, to become absorbed in the general 
destinies of humanity. 

How does this come about? I will try to make 
it understood by some examples. 

Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men 
who gave themselves up to the business of copying, 
received for this service a semuneration regulated by 
the general rate of profits. Among them is found one, 
who seeks and finds the means of multiplying rap- 
idly copies of the same work. He invents printing, 
The first effect of this is, that the individual is en- 
riched, while many more are impoverished. At the 
first view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesi- 
tates in deciding whether it is not. more injurious 
than useful. It seems to have introduced into the 
world, as I said above, an element of infinite ine-. 
quality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this 
invention, and perfects the invention by the profits, 
until all other copyists are ruined. As forthe pub- 
lic,—the consumer,—it gains but little, for Gutten- 
berg takes care to lower the price of books only just 
so much as is necessary to undersell all rivals. 

But the great Mind which put harmony into the 
movements of celestial bodies, could also give it to 
the internal mechanism of society. We will see the 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 4? 


advantages of this invention escaping from the in- 
dividual, to become forever the common patrimony 
of mankind. 

The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg 
is no longer alone in his art; others imitate him. 
Their profits are at first considerable. They are 
recompensed for being the first who make the effort 
to imitate the. processes of the newly invented art. 
This again was necessary, in order that they might 
be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great 
and final result to which we approach. They gain 
much; but they gain less than the inventor, tor com- 
petition has commenced its work. ‘the price of 
books now continually decreases. The gains of the 
imitators diminish in proportion as the invention 
becomes older; and inthe same proportion imitation 
becomes less meritorious. ‘Soon the new object of 
industry attains its normal condition; in other words, 
the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception — 
to the general rules of remuneration, and, like that 
of copyists formerly, it is only regulated by the gen- 
eral rate of profits. Here then the producer, as such, 
holds only the old position. The discovery, how- 
ever, has been made; the saving of time, labor, 
effort, fora fixed result, for a certain number of 
volumes, is realized. But in what is this manifest- 
ed? Inthe cheap price of books. For the good 
of whom? For the good of the consumer,—of 
society,—of humanity. Printers, having no longer 

6 


50 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiar 
remuneration. As men,—as consumers,—they no 
doubt participate in the advantages which the inven- 
tion confers upon the community; but that is all. 
As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the 
ordinary footing of all other producers. Society 
pays them for their labor, and not for the usefulness 
of the invention. That has become. a gratuitous 
benefit, a common heritage to mankind. 

What has been said of printing can be extended 
to every agent for the advancement of labor; from 
the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotive and 
the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the 
abundance of its use, its consumption; and it enjoys 
all gratuitously. For as their effect is to diminish 
prices, it is evident that just so much of the price 
asis taken off by their intervention, renders the 
production in so far gratuitous. There only remains 
the actual labor of man to be paid for; and the re- 
mainder, which is the result of the invention, is sub- 
tracted; at least after the invention has run through 
the cycle which I have just described as its destined 
course. I send for a workman; he brings a saw 
with him; I pay him two franes for his day’s labor, 
and he saws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had 
not been invented, he would perhaps not have been 
able to make one board, and I would have paid him 
the same for his day’s labor. The wsefulness then 
of the saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 51 


rather itis a portion of the inheritance which, 77 com- 
mon with my brother men, I have received from the 
genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in 
my field; the one directs the handle of a plough, 
the other that of aspade. ‘The result of their day’s 
labor is very different, but the price is the same, be- 
cause the remuneration is proportioned, not to the 
usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the labor 
given to attain it. 

I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him 
to believe, that I have not lost sight of free trade: 
I entreat him only to remember the conclusion at 
which I have arrived: Remuneration ts not propor- 
tioned to the usefulness of the articles brought by the 
producer into the market, but to the labor.* 

I have so far taken my examples from human 
inventions, but will now go on to speak of natural 
advantages. 

In every article of production, nature and man 
must concur. But the portion of nature is always 
eratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness of an 
article as is the result of human labor becomes the 
object of mutual exchange, and consequently of 
remuneration. ‘The remuneration varies much, no 
doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, 
of the skill which it requires, of its being @ propos 

* It is true that labor does not receive a uniform remuneration; because 
labor is more or less intense, dangerous, skillful, ete. Competition cstab- 


lishes for each category a price current; and it is of this variable price that 
I speak. 


hs 
| 
| | 


52 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


to the demand of the day, of the need which exists 
for it, of the momentary absence of competition, etc. 
But it is not the less true in principle, that the 
assistance received from natural laws, which belongs 
to all, counts for nothing in the price. | | 

We do not pay for the air we breathe, although 
so useful to us, that we could not live two minutes 
without it. We do not pay for. it, because Nature 
furnishes it without the intervention of man’s labor. 
But if we wish to separate one of the gases which 
compose it, for instance, to fill a balloon, we must 
take some trouble and labor; or if another takes. it 
for us, we must give him an equivalent in something 
which will have cost us the trouble of production. 
From which we see that the exchange is between 
troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly no‘ for hy- 
drogen gas that I pay, for this is every where at 
my disposal, but for the work that it has bcen neces- 
sary to accomplish in order to disengage it; work 
which I have been spared, and which I must refund, 
If I am told that there are other things to pay for; 
as expense, materials, apparatus; I answer, that still 
in these things it is the work that I pay for. The 
price of the coal employed is only the representation 
of the labor necessary to dig and transport it. 

We do not pay for the light of the sun, because 
Nature alone gives ittous. But we pay for the light 
of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is labor to be 
remunerated ;—-and remark, that it is so entirely 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 53 


labor and not utility to which remuneration is pro- 
portioned, that it may well happen that one of these 
means of lighting, while it may be much more effect- 
ive than another, may still cost less. 'T’o cause this, 
it is only necessary that less human labor should be 
required to furnish it. 

When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, 
were I to pay him in proportion to the absolute utelty 
of the water, my whole fortune would not be suffi- 
cient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has 
taken. If he requires more, I can get others to fur- 
nish it, or finally go and get it myself. The water 
itself is not the subject of our bargain; but the 
labor taken to get the water. This point of view 
is So important, and the consequences that I am going 
to draw from it so clear, as regards the freedom of 
international exchanges, that I will still elucidate 
my idea by a few more examples. 

The alimentary substance contained in potatoes 
does not cost us very dear, because a great deal of 
it is attainable with little work. We pay more for 
wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more 
labor from man. It is evident thatif Nature did for 
the latter what she does for the former, their prices 
would tend to the same level. It is impossible that 
the producer of wheat should permanently gain 
more than the producer of potatoes. The law of 
competition cannot allow it. | 

If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable 


54 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


lands were to be increased, it would not be the 
agriculturist, but the consumer, who would profit 
by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, 
abundance and cheapness. There would be less 
labor incorporated into an acre of grain, and the 
agriculturist would be therefore obliged to exchange 
it for a less labor incorporated into some other article. 
If, on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were sud- 
denly to deteriorate, the share of Nature in produc- 
tion would be less, that of labor greater, and the 
result would be higher prices. Iam right then in 
saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that 
+ at length all political phenomena find their solution. 
As long as we fail to follow their effects to this 
point, and look only at immediate effects, which act. 
but upon individual men or classes of men as pro- 
ducers, we know nothing more of political economy 
than the quack does of medicine, when, instead of 
following the effects of a prescription in its action 
upon the whole system, he satisfies himself with 
knowing how it affects the palate and the throat. 

The tropical regions are very favorable to the pro- 
duction of sugar and coffee; that is to say, Nature 
does most of the business and leaves but little for 
labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage 
of this liberality of Nature? Not these regions, 
for they are forced by competition to receive simply 
remuneration for their labor. Itis mankind who is 
the gainer; for the result of this liberality is cheap- 
ness, and cheapness belongs to the world. 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 55 


Here in the temperate zone, weefind coal and iron 
ore, on the surface of the soil; we have but to stoop 
and take them. At first, I grant, the immediate 
inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. 
But soon comes competition, and the price of coal 
and iron falls, until this gift of Nature becomes 
gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid 
according to the general rate of profits. 

Thus natural advantages, like improvements in 
the process of production, are, or have a constant 
tendency to become, under the law of competition, 
the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, 
- of society, of mankind. Countries therefore which 
do not enjoy these advantages, must gain by com- 
merce with those which do; because the exchanges 
of commerce are between labor and labor ; subtrac- 
tion being made of all the natural advantages which 
are combined with these labors; and it is evidently 
the most favored countries which can incorporate 
into a given labor. the largest proportion of these 
natural advantages. Their produce representing less 
labor, receives less recompense; in other words, is 
cheaper. If then all the liberality of Nature results 
in cheapness, it is evidentlymot the producing, but 
the consuming country, which profits by her benefits. 

Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the 
consuming country, which rejects produce precisely 
because it is cheap. It is as though we should say: 
“We will have nothing of that which Nature gives 


56 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


you. You ask of us an effort equal to two, in order 
to furnish ourselves with articles only attainable at 
home by an effort equal to four. You ean do it 
because with you Nature does half the work. But. 
we will have nothing to do with it; we will wait 
till your climate, becoming more inclement, forces 
you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we 
can treat with you upon an equal footing.” 

A is a favored country; B is maltreated by 
Nature. Mutual traffic then is advantageous to both, 
but principally to B, because the exchange is not 
between wiility and wtzlty, but between value and 
value. Now A furnishes a greater utility in a simi- 
lar value, because the utility of any article includes 
at once what Nature and what labor have done; 
whereas the value of it only corresponds to the por—- 
tion accomplished by labor. B then makes an 
entirely advantageous bargain; for by simply paying 
the producer from A for his labor, it receives in 
return not only the results of that labor, but in 
addition there is thrown in whatever may have 
accrued from the superior bounty of Nature. 

We will lay down the general rule. 

Traffic is an exchange of values; and as value is 
reduced by competition to the simple representation 
of labor, traffic is the exchange of equal labors. 
Whatever Nature has done towards the production 
of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides 
gratuitously ; fear whence it necessarily foliows, that 


EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 57 


the most advantageous commerce is transacted with | 
those countries which are the most favored by 
~ Nature. 


The theory of which I have attempted, in this 
chapter, to trace the outlines, would require great 
developments. But perhaps the attentive reader 
will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is 
destined in its future growth to smother Protection, 
at once with Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Common- 
ism, and the various other schools whose object is 
to exclude the law of CoMPETITION from the govern- 
ment of the world. Competition, no doubt, consid- 
ering man as producer, must often interfere with 
his individual and zmmediate interests. But if we 
consider the great object of all labor, the universal 
good, in a word, Consumption, we cannot fail to find 
that Competition is to the moral world what the law 
of equilibrium is- to the material-one. It is the 
foundation of true Commomism, of true Socialism, 
of the equality of comforts and condition, so much 
sought after in our day; and if so many sincere 
reformers, so many earnest friends to the public 
rights, seek to reach their end by commercial legisla- 
tion, it is only because they do not yet understand 
commercial freedom. 


58 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTICN, 


Vv. 


OUR PRODUCTIONS ARE OVERLOADED WITH TAX3&S, 


TuIs is but a new wording of the last Sophism. 
The demand madeis, that the foreign article should 
be taxed, in order to neutralize the effects of the 
tax, which weighs down national produce. . It is 
still then but the question of equalizing the facili- 
ties of production. We have but to say that the 
tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the 
same effect as a natural obstacle, 1. e. the increasing 
of the price. If this increase is so great that there 
is more loss in producing the article in question 
than in attracting it from foreign parts by the pro- 
duction of an equivalent value, let it alone. Indi- 
vidual interest will soon learn to choose the lesser 
of two evils. JI might refer the reader to the 
preceding demonstration for an answer to this 
Sophism; but it is one which recurs so often in the 
complaints and the petitions, I had almost said the 
demands, of the protectionist school, that it deserves 
a special discussion. 7 

If the tax in question should be one of a special 
kind, directed against fixed articles of production, 
I agree that itis perfectly reasonable that foreign 
produce should be subjected to it. or instanee, it 
would be absurd to free foreign salt from impost 


PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXs#S. 59 


duty; not that in an economical point of view 
France would lose any thing by it; on the contrary, 
whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and 
France would gain by it, as she must always gain 
by avoiding an obstacle whether natural or artifi- 
cial.. But here the obstacle has been raised with a 
fiscal object. It is necessary that this end should 
be attained ; and if foreign salt were to be sold in 
our market free from duty, the treasury wouid not 
receive its revenue, and would be obliged to seek 
it from some thing else. There would be evident 
inconsistency in creating an obstacle with a given 
‘object, and then avoiding the attainment of that 
object. It would have been better at once to seek 
what was needed in the other impost without tax- 
ing French salt. Such are the circumstances under 
which I would allow upon any foreign article a 
duty, not protecting but fiscal. 

But the supposition that a nation, because it is 
subjected to heavier imposts than those of another 
neighboring nation, should protect itself by tariffs 
against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, 
which it is now my purpose to attack. 

I have said more than once, that I am opposing 
only the theory of the protectionists, with the hope 
of discovering the source of their errors. Were I 
disposed to enter into controversy with them, I 
would say: Why direct your tariffs principally 
against England and Belgium, both countries more 


60 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


overloaded with taxes than any in the world? 
Have I not a right to look upon your argument as 
a mere pretext? But I am not of the number of 
those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by 
interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of 
Protection is too popular not to be sincere. If the 
majority could believe in freedom, we would be 
free, Without doubt it is individual interest which 
weighs us down with tariffs; but it acts upon con- 
viction. 

The State may make either a good or a bad use of 
taxes; it makes a good use of them when it ren- 
ders to the public services equivalent to the value- 
received from them; it makes a bad use of them 
when it expends this value, giving nothing in 
return. . 

To say in the first case that they place the coun- 
try which pays them in more disadvantageous con- 
ditions for production, than the country which is 
free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, 
twenty millions for the administration of justice, 
and the maintenance of the police, but we have 
justice and the police; we have the security which 
they give, the time which they save for us; and it 
is most probable that production is neither more 
easy nor more active among nations, where (if there 
be such) each individual takes the administration 
of justice into his own hands. We pay, I grant, 
many hundred millions for roads, bridges, ports, 


- PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 61 


railways; but we have these railways, these ports, 
bridges and roads, and unless we maintain that it is 
a losing business to establish them, we cannot 
say that they place us in a position inferior to that 
of nations who have, it is true, no taxes for public 
works, but who likewise have no public works. 
And here we see why (even while we accuse inter- 
nal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) 
we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations 
which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, 
well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the 
conditions of production to these nations. Thus we | 
again arrive at the conclusion that the protectionist 
Sophisms not only wander from, but are the con- 
trary—the very antithesis of truth. 

As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you 
can; but surely it is a most singular idea to sup- 
pose, that their evil effect is to be neutralized by 
the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. 
Many thanks for the compensation! The State, 
you say, has taxed us too much; surely this is no 
reason why we should tax each other! 

A. protective duty is a tax directed against for- 
eign produce, but which returns, let us keep in 
mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not then 
a singular argument to say to him, “Because the 
taxes are heavy, we will raise prices higher fer you; 
and because the State takes a part of your revenue, 
we will give another portion of it to benefit a mo- 
nopoly ? 


62 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


But let us examine more closely this Sophism so 
accredited among our legislators ; although, strange 
to say, it is precisely those who keep up the unpro- 
ductive imposts (according to our present hypoth- 
esis) who attribute to them afterwards our sup- 
posed inferiority, and seek to re-establish the equil- 
ibrium by further imposts and new clogs. 

It appears to me to be evident that protection, 
without any change in its nature and effects, might 
have taken the form of a direct tax, raised by the 
State, and distributed as a premium to privileged 
industry. 

Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our 
market at eight francs, but not lower; and French 
iron at not lower than twelve franes. 

_ In this hypothesis there are two ways in which 
the State can secure the national market to the home 
producer. 

The first, isto put upon foreign iron a duty of 
five francs. This, itis evident, would exclude it, 
because it could no longer be sold at less than 
thirteen frances; eight francs for the cost price, five 
for the tax; and at this price it must be driven 
from the market by French iron, which we have 
supposed to cost twelve francs. In this case the 
buyer, the consumer, will have paid all the expenses 
of the protection given. | 

The second means would be to lay upon the 
public a tax of five francs, and to give it as a pre- 


{ 
PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES, 63 


mium to the iron manufacturer. The effect would 
in either case be equally a protective measure. 
Foreign iron would, according to both systems, be 
alike excluded; for our iron manufacturer could 
sell at seven francs, what, with the five francs pre- 
mium, would thus bring him in twelve. While 
the price of sale being seven francs, foreign iron 
could not obtain a market at eight. 

In these two systems the principle is the same; 
the effect is the same. There is but this single 
difference ; in the first case the expense of protection 
is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of 
the community. | 

I frankly confess my preference’ for the second 
system, which I regard as more just, more economical 
and more legal. More just, because, if society 
wishes to give bounties to some of its members, the 
whole community ought to contribute; more eco- 
nomical, because it would banish many difficulties, 
and save the expenses of collection; more legal, 
lastly, because the public would see clearly into the 
operation, and know what was required of it. 

But if the protective system had taken this form, 
would it not have been laughable enough to hear it 
said, ‘We pay heavy taxes for the army, the navy, 
the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the — 
public debt, ete. These amount to more than a 
thousand million. It would therefore be desirable 
that the State should take another thousand million, 


64 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


to relieve the poor iron manufacturers; or the suffer- 
ing stockholders of coal mines; or those unfortunate 
lumber dealers, or the useful codfishery.” 

This, it must be perceived, by an attentive inves- 
tigation, is the result of the Sophism in question. 
In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts; you cannot 
give money to one without taking it from another. 
If youare absolutely determined to exhaust the funds 
of. the taxable community, well; but, at least, do 
not mock them; do not tell them, ‘We take from 
you again, in order to compensate you for what we 
have already taken.” 

It would bea too tedious undertaking to endeavor 
to point out all the fallacies of this Sophism. I 
will therefore limit myself to the consideration of it 
in three points. 

You argue that France is overburthened with 
taxes, and-deduce thence the conclusion that it is 
necessary to protect such and such an article of pro- 
duce. But protection does not relieve us from the 
payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals de- 
voting themselves to any one object of industry, 
should advance this demand: ‘‘ We, from our par- 
ticipation in the payment of taxes, have our 
expenses of production increased, and therefore ask 
for a protective duty which shall raise our price of 
sale ;’ what is this but a demand on their part to 
be allowed to free themselves from the burthen of 
the tax, by laying it on the rest of the community? 


PRODUCTIONS OVERLOARED WITH TAXES. 65 


Their object is to balance, by the increased price of 
their produce, the amount which they pay in taxes. 
Now; as the whole amount of these taxes must 
enter into the treasury, and the increase of price 
must be paid by society, it follows that (where this 
protective duty is imposed) society has to bear, not 
only the general tax, but also that for the protec- 
tion of the article in question. But it is answered, 
let every thing be protected. Firstly, this is impos- 
sible; and, again, were it possible, how could such 
a system give relief? J will pay for you, you will 
pay for me; but not the less, still there remains the 
tax to be paid. 

Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You 
determine to raise taxes for the support of an army, 
a navy, the church, university, judges, roads, ete. 
Afterwards you seek to disburthen from its portion 
of the tax, first one article of industry, then another, 
then a third; always adding to the burthen of the 
mass of society. You thus only create intermina- 
ble complications. If you can prove that the 
increase of price resulting from protection, falls 
upon the foreign producer, I grant something spe- 
cious in your argument. But if it be true that the 
French people paid the tax before the passing of 
the protective duty, and afterwards that it has 
paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, 
truly I do not perceive wherein it has profited. 

But I go much further, and maintain that the 


66 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


more oppressive our taxes are, the more anxiously 
‘ought we to open our ports and frontiers to foreign 
nations, less burthened than ourselves. And’ why? 
In order that we may share with them, as much as 
possible, the burthen which we bear. Is it not an 
incontestable maximin political economy, that taxes 
“must, in the end, fall upon the consumer? The 
greater then our commerce, the greater the portion 
which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes incorpo- 
rated in the produce, which we will have sold to 
foreign consumers; whilst we, on our part, will 
have made to them only a lesser reimbursement, 
because (according to our hypothesis) their produce 
is less taxed than ours. 

_ Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask 
yourself, whether these heavy taxes which you 
adduce as a reason for keeping up the prohibitive 
system, may not be the result of this very system 
itself? ‘To what purpose would be our great stand- 
ing armies, and our powerful navies, if commerce 
were free ? 


BALANCE OF TRADE. 67 


VI 


BALANCE OF TRADE. 


‘Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, 
which embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove 
our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in the 
most respectful manner. Do we aitack their princi- 
ples? They abandon them with the best possible 
grace. They only ask that our doctrine, which 
they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to 
books ; and that their principles, which they allow 
to be false, should be established in practice. If 
we will give up to them the regulation of our 
tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the domain 
of theory. - | 

‘“‘ Assuredly,” said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, 
lately, “assuredly no one wishes to call up from 
their graves the defunct theories of the balance of 
trade.” And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this 
passing blow to error, goes on immediately after- 
wards, and for two hours consecutively, to reason as 
though this error were a truth. 

Give me Mr. Lestiboudois. Here we have a con- 
sistent reasoner! a logical arguer! ‘There is noth- 
ing in his conclusions which cannot be found in his 
premises. He asks nothing in practice which he 
does not justify in theory. His principles may per- 


68 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


chance be false, and this is the point in question. 
But he has a principle. He believes, he proclaims 
aloud, that if France gives ten to receive fifteen, 
she loses five; and surely, with such a belief, noth- 
ing 1s more Mee than that he should make laws 
consistent with it. 

He says: “ What it is important to remark, is, 
that constantly the amount of importation is aug- 
menting, and surpassing that of exportation. Hvery 
year France buys more foreign produce, and sells 
less of its own produce. This can be proved by 
figures. In 1842, we see the importation exceed 
the exportation by two hundred millions. This 
appears to me to prove, in the clearest manner, that 
national labor ts not sufficiently protected, that we are 
provided by foreign labor, and that the competi- 
tion of our rivals oppresses our industry.. The law 
in question, appears to me.to be a consecration of the 
fact, that our political economists have assumed a 
false position in declaring, that in proportion to pro- 
duce bought, there is always a corresponding quan- 
tity sold. Itis evident that purchases may be made, 
not with the habitual productions of a country, not 
with its revenue, not with the results of actual 
labor, but with its capital, with the accumulated 
savings which should serve for reproduction. A 
country may spend, dissipate its profits and savings, 
may impoverish itself, and by the consumption of its 
national capital, progress gradually to its ruin. Thds 


BALANCE OF TRADE. 69 


ts precisely what we are doing. We give, every yeur, 
two hundred millions to foreign nations.” 

Well! here, at least, isa man whom we can under- 
stand. There is no hypocrisy in this language. The 
balance of trade is here clearly maintained and 
defended. France imports two hundred millions 
more than she exports. Then France loses two 
hundred millions yearly. Andthe remedy? It is 
to check importation.. The conclusioa is perfectly 
consistent. | 

It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will 
argue, for how is it possible to do so with Mr. Gau- 
thier? If you say to the latter, the balance of 
trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have declared 
it in my exordium. If you exclaim, But it isa 
truth, he will say, Thus I have classed it in my 
conclusions. . 

Political economists may blame me for arguing 
with Mr. Lestiboudois. To combat the balance of 
trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than to fight 
against a windmill. 

But let us be on our guard. The balance of 
trade is neither go old, nor so sick, nor so dead, as 
Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine ; for all the legis- 
lature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated 
by their votes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois. 

However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not 
seek to investigate too closely this theory, but will 
content myself with subjecting it to the experience 
of facts. 


70 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


it is constantly alleged in opposition to our prin- 
ciples, that they are good only in theory. But, gen- 
tlemen, do you believe that merchants’ books. are 
good: in practice? It does appear to me that if 
there is any thing which can havea practical author- 
ity, when the object is to prove profit and loss, that 
this must be commercial accounts. We cannot 
suppose that all the merchants of the world, for 
centuries back, should have. so little understood 
their own affairs, as to have kept their books in 
such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and 
losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe 
that Mr. Lestiboudois is a bad political economist. 

A merchant, one of my friends, having had two 
business transactions, with very different results, 
I have been curious to compare on this subject 
the accounts of the counter with those of the cus- 
tom-house, interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with 
the sanction of our six hundred legislators. 

Mr. T’. .despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, 
for the United States, with French merchandise, 
principally Parisian articles, valued at 200,000 francs. 
Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. 
The cargo, on its arrival at New Orleans, had paid 
ten per cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per 
cent. duties; which raised its value to 280,000 franes. 
It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original 
value, which being 40,000 franes, the price of sale 
was 829,000 francs, which the assignee converted 


BALANCE OF TRADE. pei 


into cotton. This cotton, again, had to pay for 
expenses of transportation, Insurance, commissions, 
etc., ten per cent.: so that when the return cargo 
arrived at Havre, its value had risen to 352,000 
francs, and it was thus entered at the custom-house. 
Finally, Mr. T...realized again on this return cargo 
twenty per cent. profits; amounting to 70,400 francs. 
The cotton thus sold for the sum of 422,400 francs. 

If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him 
an.extract from the books of Mr. T... He will 
there see, credited to the account of profit and loss, 
that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the 
one of 40,000, the other of 70,000 frances, and Mr. 
T... feels perfectly certain that as regards, these, 
there is no mistake in his accounts. 

Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw 
from the sums entered into the custom-house, in 
this operation? He thence learns that France has 
exported 200,000 francs, and imported 352,000; 
from whence the honorable deputy concludes “ that 
she has spent, dissipated the profits of her previous 
savings ; that shers impoverishing herself and progress- 
ing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on @ 
foreign nation 152,000 francs of her capital.” 

Some time after this transaction, Mr. T’... des- 
patched another vessel, again freighted with eee 
produce, to the amount of 200,000 francs. But the . 
vessel foundered after leaving the port, and Mr. 
T... had only farther to inscribe on his books two 
little items, thus worded: 


ee SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


“ Sundries due to X, 200,000 francs, for purchase 
of divers articles despatched by vessel N. 

“ Profit and loss due to sundries, 200,000 frances, 
for final and total loss of cargo.” 

In “the meantime the custom-house inscribed 
200,000 frances upon its list of exportations, and as 
there can of course be nothing to balance this entry 
on the list of ¢mportations, it hence follows that Mr. 
Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this 
wreck a clear profit to France of 200,000 francs.. 

We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz. : 
that according to the Balance of Trade theory, 
France has an exceedingly simple manner of con- 
stantly doubling her capital. | It is only necessary, to 
accomplish this, that she should, after entering into 
the custom-house her articles for exportation, cause 
them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, 
her exportations can speedily be made to equal her 
capital; importations will be nothing, and our gain 
will be, all which the ocean will have swallowed up. 

You are joking, the. protectionists will reply. 
You know that it is impossible that we should utter 
such absurdities. Nevertheles, I answer, you do 
utter them, and what is more, you give them life, 
you exercise them practically upon your fellow 
citizens, as much, at least, as is in your power to do. ~ 

The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of 
Trade should be precisely reversed. The profits 
accruing to the nation from any foreign commerce 


PETITION. fs 


should be calculated by the overplus of the import- 
ation above the exportation. This overplus, after 
the deduction of expenses, is the real gain. Here 
we have the true theory, and it is one which leads 
directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, 
abandon you this theory, as I have done all those 
of the preceding chapters. Do with it as you please, 
exaggerate it as you will; it has nothing to fear. 
Push it to the farthest extreme; imagine, if it so 
please you, that foreign nations should inundate us 
with useful produce of every description, and ask 
nothing in return; that our importations should be 
infinite, and our exportations nothing. Imagine all 
this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be 
the poorer in consequence. 


VIL 


PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, 
WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, 
SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS; AND FROM THE PRO. 
DUCERS OF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND 

- GENERALLY OF EVERY THING USED FOR LIGHTS. 


To the Honorable the Members of the Chamber of Deputies : 


‘ GENTLEMEN,—You are in the right way: you 
reject abstract theories; abundance, cheapness, con- 
cerns you little You are entirely occupied with 

8 


74. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious 
to free from foreign competition. - In a word, you 
wish to secure the national market to national labor. 

“We come now to offer you an admirable oppor- 
tunity for the application of your what shall 
we say? your theory? no, nothing is more deceiving 
than theory ;—your doctrine? your system? your 
principle? But you do not like doctrines; you 
hold systems in horror; and, as for principles, you 
declare that there are no such things in political 
economy. We will say then, your practice; your 
practice without theory, and without principle. 

“We are subjected to the intolerable competition 
of a foreign rival, who enjoys, it would seem, such ~ 
superior facilities for the production of light, that 
he is enabled to inundate our national market at so 
exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he 
makes his appearance, he draws off all custom from 
us; and thus an important branch of French indus- 
try, with all its innumerable ramifications, is sud- 
denly reduced to a state of complete stagnation. 
This rival, who is no other than the sun, carries on 
so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason 
to believe that he has been excited to this course by 
our perfidious neighbor England. (Good diplomacy 
this, for the present time!) In this belief we are 
confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions 
with this proud island, he is much more moderate 
and careful than with us. | 


PETITION. 75 


“Our petition is, that it would please your hon- 
orable body to pass a law whereby shall be directed 
the shutting up of all windows, dormers, s sky-lights, 
shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-boeufs, in a word, 
all openings, holes, chinks and fissures through 
which the light of the sun is used to penetrate into 
our dwellings, to the predjudice of the profitable 
manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have 
been. enabled to bestow upon the country; which 
country cannot, therefore, without ingratitude, leave 
us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal 
a contest. 

“We pray your honorable body not to mistake 
our petition for a satire, nor to repulse. us without 
at least hearing the reasons which we have to advance 
in its favor. 

“ And first, if, by shutting out as much as rene 
all access to natural light, you thus create the neces- 
sity for artificial light, is there in France an industrial 
pursuit which will not, through some connection 
with this important object, be benefited by: it ? 

“Tf more tallow be consumed, there will arise a 
necessity for an increase of cattle and sheep. Thus 
artificial meadows must be in greater demand; and 
meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis 
of agricultural riches, must. become more abundant. 

“Tf more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase 
in the cultivation of the olive-tree. This plant, 
luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, will come in 


76 SUPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


good time to profit by the increased fertility which 
the raising of cattle will have communicated to our 
fields. 

~ “Our heaths will become covered with resinous 
trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather upon 
our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are 
now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms 
from which they emanate. There is, in short, no 
branch of agriculture which would not be greatly 
developed by the granting of our petition. 

“Navigation would equally profit. Thousands 
of vessels would soon be employed in the whale 
fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable of 
sustaining the honor of France, and of responding 
to the patriotic sentiments of the phe ogee peti- 
tioners, candle merchants, etc. 

“But what words can express the siepaeenee 
which Paris will then exhibit! Cast an eye upon 
the future and behold the gildings, the bronzes, the 
magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors 
and candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious 
stores, compared with which the splendor of the 
present day will appear trifling and insignificant. 

“There is none, not even the poor manufacturer 
of resin in the midst of his pine forests, nor the 
miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but who 
would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts. 

“Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, 
you cannot fail to be convinced that there is per: 


PETITION. 77 


haps not one Frenchman, from the opulent stock 
holder of Anzin down to the poorest vender of 
matches, who is not interested in the success of our 
petition. 

“We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but 
there is not one that you can oppose to us which 
you will not be obliged to gather from the works 
of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge 
you to pronounce one word against our petition, 
which is not equally opposed to your own practice 
and the principle which guides your policy. 

**Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protec 
tion, France will not gain, because the consumei 
must pay the price of it? 

“We answer you: 

“You have no longer any right to cite the inter 
est of the consumer. For whenever this has been 
found to compete with that of the producer, you 
have invariably sacrificed the first.. You have done 
this to encourage labor, to increase the demand for 
labor. The same reason should now induce you to 
act in the same manner. 

“You have yourselves already answered the 
objection. When you were told: The consumer is 
interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, 
wheat, cloths, etc., your answer was: Yes, but the 
producer is interested in their exclusion. Thus, 
also, if the consumer is interested in the admission 
of light, we, the producers, pray for its interdiction. 


78 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


“You have also said, the producer and the con- 
sumer are one. If the manufacturer gains by pro- 
tection, he will cause the agriculturist to gain also; 
if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manu- 
factured goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us 
the monopoly of furnishing light during the day, 
willas a first consequence buy large quantities of 
tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, 
bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and 
then we and our numerous contractors having 
become rich, our consumption will be great, and 
will become a means of contributing to the com- 
fort and competency of the workers in every 
branch of national labor. 

“Will you say that the light of the sun is a 
gratuitous gift, and that to repulse gratuitous gifts, 
is to repulse riches under pretence of encouraging 
the means of obtaining them? 

“Take care,—you carry the death-blow to your 
own policy. Remember that hitherto you have 
always repulsed foreign produce, because it was an 
approach to a gratuitous gift, and the more in pro- 
portion as this approach was more close. You haye, 
in obeying the wishes of other monopolists, acted 
only from a half-motive; to grant our petition 
there is a much fuller inducement. ‘To repulse us, 
precisely for the reason that our case is a more com- 
plete one than any which have preceded it, would Ne 
to lay down the following equation: + X +-=— 


PETITION. 19 


in other words, it would be to gee So absurdity 
upon absurdity. 

“Labor and Nature concur in different propor- 
tions, according to country and climate, in every 
article of production. The portion of Nature is 
always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the 
price. 

“Tf a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price 
of a Parisian one, it is because a natural and gratu- 
itous heat does for the one, what the other only 
obtains from an artificial and consequently expen- 
sive one. 

“When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese 
orange, we may say that we obtain it half gratui- 
tously and half by the right. of labor; in other 
words, at half price compared to those -of Paris. 

“Now it is precisely on account of this dem- 
gratuity (excuse the word) that you argue in favor 
of exclusion. How, you say, could national labor 
sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the 
first has every thing to do, and the last is rid of 
half the trouble, the sun taking the rest of the 
business upon himself? If then the demi-gratuity 
can determine you to check competition, on what 
principle can the entere gratwity be alleged as a rea- 
son for admitting it? You are no logicians if, 
refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human 
labor, you do not @ fortiori, and with double zeal, 
reject the full gratuity. 


80 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


“ Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, 
or cloth, comes to us from foreign countries with 
less labor than if we produced it ourselves, the dif: 
ference in price is a gratuitous gift conferred upon 
us; and the giftis more or less considerable, accord- 
ing as the difference is greater or less. It is the 
quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of the value 
of the produce, in proportion as the foreign mer- 
chant requires the three-quarters, the half, or the 
quarter of the price. It is as complete as possible 
when the producer offers, as the sun does with light, 
the whole in free gift. The question is, and we 
put it formally, whether you wish for France the 
benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposed 
advantages of laborious production. Choose, but 
be consistent. And does it not argue the greatest 
Inconsistency to check as you do the importation 
of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreign manu- 
facture, merely because and even in proportion as 
their price approaches zero, while at the same time 
you freely admit, and without limitation, the light 
of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at 
zero ?” 


DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. . 81 


VIIL 
DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. 


A. poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the 
greatest possible care and attention, a nursery of 
- vines, from which, after much labor, he at last suc- 
ceeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in 
the joy of his success, that each drop of this pre-_ 
cious nectar had cost a drop of sweat to his brow. 
I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the pro- 
ceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make 
a trousseau for our daughter. The honest country- 
man, arriving in the city, there mét an Englishman 
and a Belgian. ‘The Belgian said to him, Give me 
your wine, and I in exchange, will give you fifteen 
bundles of thread. The Englishman said, Give it 
‘ to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, for we 
English can spin cheaper than the Belgians. Buta 
custom-house officer standing by, said to the 
laborer, My good fellow, make your exchange, if 
you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to 
prevent your doing so with the Englishman. 
What! exclaimed the countryman, you wish me 
to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I 
can have twenty from Manchester? Certainly; do 
you not see that France would be a loser, if you 
were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen ? 
9 


82 _SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I can scarcely understand this,. said the labcrer. 
Nor can [ explain it, said the custom-house officer, 
but there is no doubt of the fact; for deputies, 
ministers, and editors, all agree that a people is 
impoverished in proportion as it receives a large 
compensation for any given quantity of its produce. 
The countryman was obliged to conclude his _ bar- 
gain with the Belgian. His daughter received but 
three-fourths of her trousseau ; and these good folks 
are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can 
happen that people are ruined by receiving four 
instead of three; and why they are richer with 
three dozen towels instead of four. 


TX. 
WONDERFUL DISCOVERY! 


AT this moment, when all minds are occupied in 
endeavoring to discover the most economical means 
of transportation; when, to put these means into 
practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, 
perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and 
attempting various systems of traction, atmos; 
pheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, ete.,—at this 
moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in 


WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 83 


sincerity and with ardor the solution of this prob- 
lem— 

“ To bring the price of things in their place of con- 
sumption, as near as possible to their price in that of 
production” — ‘ 

I would believe myself acting a culpable part 
towards my country, towards the age in which I 
live, and towards myself, if I were longer to keep 
secret the wonderful discovery which I have just 
made. 

IT am well aware that the self-illusions of invent- 
ors have become proverbial, but I have, neverthe- 
less, the most complete certainty of having discov- 
ered an infallible means of bringing the produce 
of the entire world into France, and reciprocally to 
transport ours, with a very important reduction of 
price. 

Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the 
advantages of my astonishing invention, which 
requires neither plans nor devices, neither prepara- 
tory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor 
capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assist- 
ance! ‘There isno danger of shipwrecks, of explo- 
sions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of 
rails! It canbe put into practice without prepara- 
tion from one day to another ! 

Finally, and this will,no doubt, recommend it 
to the public, it will not increase taxes one cent; 
but the contrary. It will not augment the number 


84 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of 
government officers; but the contrary. It will put 
in hazard the liberty of no one; but the contrary. 

I have been led to this discovery not from acci- 
dent, but observation, and I will tell you how. 

I had this question to determine: 

“Why does any article made, for instance, at 
Brussels, bear an increased price on its arrival at 
Paris?” 

It was immediately evident to me that this was 
the result of obstacles of various kinds existing 
between Brussels and Paris. First, there is distance, 
which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss 
of time; and either we must submit to these in our 
own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. 
Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and 
muddy roads; these are so many difficulties to be 
overcome; in order to do which, causeways are con- 
structed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads 
established, ete. But all this is costly, and the 
article transported must bear its portion of the 
expense. There are robbers, too, on the roads, and 
this necessitates guards, a police, ete. 

Now, among these cbstacles, there is one which we 
ourselves have placed, and that at no little expense, 
between Brussels and Paris. ‘T'his consists of men 
planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose 
business it is to place difficulties in the way of the 
transportation of goods from one country to another. 


WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 85 


These men are called custom-house officers, and their 
effect is precisely similar to that of steep and boggy 
roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way 
of transportation, thus contributing to the difference 
which we have remarked between the price of pro- 
duction and that of consumption; to diminish which 
difference as much as possible, is the problem which 
we are seeking to resolve. 

Here, then, we have found its solution. Let our 
taryf be diminished. We willthus have constructed ~ 
a Northern Railroad which will cost us nothing. 
Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and 
will begin from the first day to save capital. 

Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how 
our brains could have admitted so whimsical a piece 
of folly, as to induce us to pay many millions to 
destroy the natural obstacles interposed between 
France and other nations, only at the same time to 
pay so many millions more in order to replace them 
by artificial obstacles, which have exactly the same 
effect; so that the obstacle removed, and the obstacle 
created, neutralize each other; things go on as before, 
and the only result of our trouble, is, a double 
expense. 

An article of Belgian production is worth at 
Brussels twenty francs, and, from the expenses of 
transportation, thirty francs at Paris. A similar 
article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs, 
What is our course under these circumstances ? 


86 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


First, we impose a duty of at least ten francs on 
the Belgian article, so as to raise its price to a level 
with that of the Parisian; the government withal, 
paying numerous officials to attend.to the levying of 
this duty. The article thus pays ten francs for 
transportation, ten for the tax. 

This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation 
between Brussels and Paris is very dear ; let us 
spend two or three millions in railways, and we will 
‘reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a 
course will be to get the Belgian article at Paris for 
thirty-five francs, viz: 

20 franes—price at Brussels. 

10 54 duty. 

5 “ transportation by railroad. 


85 francs—total, or market price at Paris. 

Could we not have attained the same end by low- 
ering the tariff to five francs? We would then 
have— 

20 francs—price at Brussels. 

Butt duty. | 
ED) ok transportation on the common road, 


85 francs—total, or market price at Paris. ° 
And this arrangement would have saved us the 
200,000,000 spent upon the railroad, besides the 
expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which 
would of course diminish in proportion as the 
temptation to smuggling would become less. 


WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 87 


But it is answered, the duty is necessary to pro- 
tect Parisian industry. So be it; but do not then 
destroy the effect of it by your railroad. — 

For if you persist in your determination to keep 
the Belgian article on a par with the Parisian at 
forty francs, you must raise the duty to fifteen francs, 
in order to have :— , 

20 franes—price at Brussels. 

isa, protective duty. 

aay transportation by railroad. 

40 francs—total, at equalized prices. 

And I now ask, of what benefit, under these cireum- 
stances, is the railroad ? ; 

Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth 
century, that it should be destined to transmit to 
future ages the example of such puerilities seriously 
and gravely practiced? ‘To be the dupe of another, 
is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and 
ceremonies of legislation in order to cheat one’s 
self—to doubly cheat one’s self, and that too in a 
mere mathematical account,—truly this is calculated 
to lower a little the pride of this enlightened age. 


88 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


xX. 


RECIPROCITY. 


WE have just seen that all which renders trans: 
portation difficult, acts in the same manner as pro- 
tection; or,if the expression be preferred, that 
protection tends towards the same result as obstacles 
to transportation. 

A tariff may then be truly seo of,asa swamp, 
a rut, a steep hill; in a word, an obstacle, whose 
effect is to augment the difference between the price ~ 
of consumption and that of production. It is 
equally incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc., are 
veritable protective tariffs. 

There are people (few in number, it is true, but 
such there are) who begin to understand that obstacles 
are not the less obstacles, because they are artifi- 
cially created, and that our well-being is more 
advanced by freedom of trade than by protection; 
precisely as a canal is more desirable than a sandy, 
hilly, and difficult road. 

But they still say, this liberty ought to be recipro- 
cal. If we take off our taxes in favor of Spain, 
while Spain does not do the same towards us, it is 
evident that we are duped. Let us then make 
treaties of commerce upon the basis of a just reciproc- 
ity; let us yield where we are yielded to; let us 


RECIPROCITY. 89 


make the sacrifice of buying that we may obtain 
the advantage of selling. 

Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), 
whether they know it or not, governed by the pro- 
tectionist principle. They are only a little more 
inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are 
more inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists. 

I will illustrate this by a fable. 


STULTA AND PUERA (FOOL-TOWN AND Boy-Towy). 


There were, it matters not where, two towns, 
Stulta and Puera, which at great expense had a road 
built which connected them with each other. Some 
time after this was done, the inhabitants of Stulia 
became uneasy, and said: Puera is overwhelming 
us with its productions; this must be attended to. 
They established therefore a corps of Obstructors, so 
called because their business was to place obstacles 
in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from 
Puera. Soon after, Puera also established a corps 
of Obstructors. 

After some centuries, people having become more 
enlightened, the inhabitants of Puera began to dis- 
cover that these reciprocal obstacles might possibly 
be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an 
ambassador to Stulta, who (passing over the official 
phraseology) spoke much to this effect: “‘We have 
built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way 


90 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of this road. This is absurd. It would have been 
far better to have left things in their original position, 
for then we would not have been put to the expense 
of building our road, and afterwards of creating 
difficulties. In the name of Puera, I come to pro- 
pose to you, not to renounce at once our system of 
mutual obstacles, for this would be acting according 
to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you 
do; but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weigh- 
ing at the same time carefully our respective 
sacrifices.” The ambassador having thus spoken, 
the town of Stulta asked time to reflect; manufac- 
turers, agriculturists were consulted; and at last, 
after some years’ deliberation, it was declared that 
the negotiations were broken off 

At this news, the inhabitants of Puera held a 
council. An old man (who it has always been sup- 
posed had been secretly bribed by Stulia) rose and 
said: “The obstacles raised by Studéa are injurious 
to our sales; this is a misfortune.’ Those which 
we ourselves create, injure our purchases; this is a 
second misfortune. We have no power over the 
first, but the second is entirely dependent upon 
ourselves. Let us then at least get rid of one, since 
we cannot be delivered from both. Let ws suppress 
our corps of Obstructors, without waiting for Stulia 
to do the same. Some day or other she will learn 
to understand better her own interests.” 

A second counselor, a man of practice and of 


RECIPROCITY. 91 


facts, uncontrolled by theories and wise in ancestral 
experience, replied: ‘We must not listen to this 
dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, 
this political economist, this friend to Stulta. We 
would be entirely ruined if the embarrassments of 
the road were not cdrefully weighed and exactly 
equalized, between Stulta and Peura. There would 
be more difficulty in going than in coming; in 
exportation than in importation. We would be, 
with regard to Stulta, in the inferior condition in 
whith Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, 
Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities 
placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, 
Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for 
the difficulties of ascending must always be greater 
than those of descending rivers. (A voice ex- 
claims: ‘But the cities near the mouths of rivers 
have always prospered more than those higher up 
the stream.’) This is not possible. (The same 
voice: ‘But it is a fact.’) Well, they have then 
prospered contrary to rule.” Such conclusive rea- 
soning staggered the assembly. The orator went 
on to convince them thorouglily and conclusively 
by speaking of national independence, national 
honor, national dignity, national labor, overwhelm- 
ing importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In 
short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to 
continue their system of obstacles, and I can now 
point out a certain country where you may see road- 


92, SOPHISMS Of PROTECTION. 


builders and Odstructors working with the best pos: — 
sible understanding, by the decree of the same 
legislative assembly, paid by the same citizens; the 
first to improve the road, the last to embarrass it. 


XI. 
ABSOLUTE PRICES. 


IF we wish to judge between freedom of trade 
and protection, to calculate the probable effect of 
any political phenomenon, we should notice how 
far its influence tends to the production of abund- 
ance or scarcity, and not simply of cheapness or dearness 
of price. We must beware of trusting to absolute 
prices, it would lead to inextricable confusion. 

Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having estab- 
. lished the fact that protection raises prices, adds: 

“The augmentation of price increases the ex- 
penses of life, and consequently the price of labor, 
and every one finds in the increase of the price of 
his produce the same proportion as in the increase 
of his expenses. Thus, if every body pays as con: 
sumer, every body receives also as producer.” 

It is evident that it would be easy to reverse 
the argument and say: If every body receives as 
producer, every body must pay as consumer. 


ABSOLUTE PRICES. 93 


Now, what does this prove? Nothing whatever, 
unless it be that protection transfers riches, uselessly 
and unjustly. Robbery does the same. 

Again, to prove that the complicated arrange- 
ments of this system give even simple compensa- 
tion, it is necessary to adhere to the “ consequenily” 
of Mr. de Dombasle, and to convince one’s self that 
the price of labor rises with that of the articles pro- 
tected. This isa question of fact, which I refer to 
Mr. Moreau de Jonnés, begging him to examine 
whether the rate of wages was found to increase 
with the stock of the mines of Anzin. For my 
own part I do not believe in it, because I think that 
the price of labor, like every thing else, is governed 
by the proportion existing between the supply and 
the demand. Now I can perfectly well understand 
that restriction will diminish the supply of coal, and 
consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly 
see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby 
raising the rate of wages. ‘This is the less conceiv- 
able tome, because the sum of labor required 
depends upon the quantity of disposable capital ; 
and protection, while it may change the direction 
of capital, and transfer it from one business to 
another, cannot increase it one penny. 

This question, which is of the highest interest, 
we will examine elsewhere. I return to the discus- 
sion of absolute prices and declare that there is no 
absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by 
such reasoning as that of Mr. de Dombasle. 


94 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION, 


Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given 
quantity of cash, and every year wantonly burning 
the half of its produce. I will undertake to prove 
by the theory of Mr. de Dombasle that this nation 
will not be the less rich in consequence of such a 
procedure. : 

_ For, the result of the conflagration must be, that 
every thing would double in price. An inventory 
made before this event would offer exactly the same 
nominal value, as one made after it. Who then 
would be the loser? If John buys his cloth dearer, 
he also sells his corn at a higher price; and if Peter 
makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains 
it back by the sale of his cloth. Thus ‘every one 
finds in the increase of the price of his produce, 
the same proportion as in the increase of his 
expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, 
every body also receives as producer.” 

All this is nonsense. The simple truth is: that 
~ whether men destroy their corn and cloth by fire or 
by use, the effect 1s the same as regards price, but not 
as regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment 
of the use, that riches—in other words, comfort, 
well-being—exist. 

Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens 
the abundance of things, raise their prices, so as to 
leave each individual as rich, numerically speaking, 
as when unembarrassed by it. But because we put 
down in an inyentory three hectolitres of corn at 


DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES? 95 


20 francs, or four hectolitres at 15 francs, and sum 
up the nominal value of each at 60 frances, does it 
thence follow that they are equally capable of con- 
tributing to the necessities of the community? 

To this view of consumption, it will be my con- 
tinual endeavor to lead the protectionists; for- in 
this is the end: of all my efforts, the solution of 
every problem. I must continually repeat to them 
that restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting 
the division of labor, by forcing it to combat diffi- 
culties of situation and temperature, must in its 
results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed 
quantum of labor. And what can it benefit us that 
the smaller quantity produced under the protective 
system bears the same nominal valieas the greater 
quantity produced under the free trade system? 
Man does not live on nominal values, but on real 
articles of produce; and the more abundant these 
articles are, no matter what price they. may bear, 
the richer is he. 


oaths 
DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? 


WORKMEN, your situation is singular! you are 
robbed, as I will presently prove to you.... But no; 
I retract the word; we must avoid an expression 


96 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inas-. 
much as this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms 

which disguise it, is practiced, we must believe, 

without the intention of the spoiler, and with the 

consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true 
that you are deprived of the just compensation of 

your labor, while no one thinks of causing justice 
to be rendered to you. If you could be consoled 
by noisy appeals. to philanthropy, to powerless 
charity, to degrading-alms-giving, or if high-sound-. 
ing words would relieve you, these indeed you can 
have in abundance. But justice, simple justice— 
nobody thinks of rendering you this. For would it 
not be just that after a long day’s labor, when you 
have received your little wages, you should be per- 

mitted to exchange them for the largest possible 
« sum of comforts that you can obtain voluntarily 
from any man whatsoever upon the face of the 
earth ? 

Let us examine if znjustice is not done to you, by 
the legislative imitation of the persons from whom 
you are allowed to buy those things which you need; 
as bread, meat, cotton and woolen cloths, etc.; thus 
fixing (so to express myself) the artificial price 
which these articles must bear. 

Is it true that protection, which ayowedly raises 
prices, and thus injures you, raises proportionably 
the rate of wages? 

On what does the rate of wages depend ? 


DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES? 97 


One of your own class has energetically said: . 
“When two workmen run after a master, wages 
fall; when two masters run after a workman, wages 
rise.” 

Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a 
more scientific, though perhaps a less striking 
expression: ‘‘T'he rate of wages depends upon the 
proportion which the supply of labor bears to the 
demand.” 

On what depends the demand for labor? 

On the quantity of disposable national capital. 
And the law which says, “such or such an article. 
shall be limited to home production and no longer 
imported from foreign countries,” can: it in-any 
degree increase this capital? Not -.in the least, 
This law may withdraw it from one course, and 
transfer it to another; but cannot: increase it one 
penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for 
labor. 

While we point with pride to some prosperous 
manufacture, can we answer, from whence comes 
the capital with which it is founded and maintained? 
Has it fallen from the moon? ‘or rather is it not 
drawn either from agriculture, or navigation, or 
other industry? We here see why, since the reign 
of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in our 
mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also 
fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer laborers and 
vine-growers in our fields and upon our hill-sides, 

raha 


98 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I could speak at great length upon this subject, 
but prefer illustrating my thought by an example. 

A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a 
capital of 10,000 francs. He divided his land into 
four parts, and adopted for it the following changes 
of crops: Ist, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 
4th, rye. As he needed for himself and family but 
a small portion of the grain, meat, and dairy-produce 
of the farm, he sold the surplusand bought oil, flax, 
wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly 
distributed in wages and payments of accounts to’ 
‘tthe workmen of the neighborhood. This capital 
was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even 
increased from year to year. Our countryman, 
being fully convinced that idle capital produces 
nothing, caused to circulate among the working 
classes this annual increase, which he devoted to the 
inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements 
in his farming utensils and his buildings He 
deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a 
neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave 
these idle in his strong box, but lent them to various 
tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully 
employed in the payment of wages. 

The countryman died, and his son, become master 
of the inheritance, said to himself: “It must be 
confessed that my father has, all his life, allowed 
himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid 
tribute to Province, while our own land could, by an 


DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES ? 99 


effort, be made to produce olives. He bought wine, 
flax, and oranges, thus paying iribute to Brittany, 
Medoe, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, 
for wine, flax and oranges may be forced to grow 
upon our own lands. He paid tribute to the miller 
and the weaver; our own servants could very well 
weave our linen, and crush our wheat between twa 
stones. He did all he could to ruin himself, and 
gave to strangers what ought to have been kept for 
the benefit of his own household.” 

Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow 
determined to change the routine of his crops. He. 
divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he 
cultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on 
a third flax; he devoted the fourth to vines, the 
fifth to wheat, ete., etc. Thus he succeeded in ren- 
dering himself independent, and furnished all his 
family supplies from his own farm. He no longer 
received any thing from the general circulation ; 
neither, it 1s true, did he cast any thing into it. 
Was he the richer for this course? No, for his 
land did not suit the cultivation of the vine; nor 
was the climate favorable to the olive. In short, 
the family supply of all these articles was very 
inferior to what it had been during the time when 
the father had obtained them all by exchange of 
produce. 

With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly 
was no greater than formerly. There were, to be 


100 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


sure, five times as many fields to cultivate, but they 
were five times smaller. If oil was raised, there 
was less wheat; and because there was no more 
flax bought, neither was there any more rye sold. 
Besides, the farmer could not spend in wages more 
than his capital, and his capital, instead of increas- 
ing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part 
of it was necessarily devoted to numerous build- 
ings and utensils, indispensable to a person who 
determines to undertake every thing. . In short, the 
supply of labor continued the same, but the means 
of paying becoming less, there was, necessarily, a 
reduction of wages. } 
The result is precisely similar, when a nation 
isolates itself by the prohibitive system. Its num- 
ber of industrial pursuits is certainly multiplied, 
but their importance is diminished. In proportion 
to their number, they become less productive, for: 
the same capital and the same skill are obliged to 
meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed 
capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capi- 
tal; that is to say, a greater part of the funds destined 
to the payment of wages. What remains, ramifies 
itself in vain, the quantity cannot be augmented, 
It is like the water of a pond, which, distributed in 
a multitude of reservoirs, appears to be more abund- 
ant, because it covers a greater quantity of soil, 
and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we 
hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it 
absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker. 


NOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES? 101 


Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum 
of production, always the less great, in proportion 
as obstacles are numerous. ‘There can be no doubt 
that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor 
‘to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and 
climate, must cause the general production to be 
less, or, in other words, diminish the portion of 
comforts which would thence result to mankind. 
If, then, there be a general diminution of comforts, 
how, workmen, can it be possible that your portion 
should be increased? Under such a supposition, 
it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those 
who made the law, have so arranged matters, that 
not only they subject themselves to their own pro- 
portion of the general loss, but taking the whole of 
it upon themselves, that they submit also to a | 
further loss, in order to increase your gains. Is 
this credible? Is this possible? It is, indeed, a 
most suspicious act of generosity, and if you act 
wisely, you will reject it. 


102 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


XTIL. 
THEORY — PRACTICE. 


_ PARTISANS of free-trade, we are accused of being 
theorists, and not relying sufficiently upon practice. . 
What a powerful argument against Mr. Say-(says 
My. Ferrier,) is the long succession of distinguished 
ministers, the imposing league of writers who have 
all differed from him; and Mr. Say is himself con- 
scious of this, for he says: “It has been said, in sup- 
port of old errors, that there must necessarily be 
some foundation for ideas so generally adopted by 
all nations. Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust 
observations and reasoning which run counter to 
every thing which has been looked upon as certain 
up to this day, and which has been regarded as 
undoubied by so many who were to be confided in, 
alike on account of their learning and of their 
philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I con- 
fess, calculated to make a profound impression, and 
might cast a doubt upon the most incontestable 
facts, if the world had not seen so many opinions, 
now universally recognized as false, as universally 
maintain, during a long series of ages, their domin- 
ion over the human mind. The day is not long 
passed since all nations, from the most ignorant to 
the most enlightened, and all men, the wisest ag 


THEORY—PRACTICE. 103 


well as the most uninformed, admitted only four 
elements. Nobody dreamed of disputing this doc- 
irine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day uni- 
versally decried.” 

Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the follow- 
ing remarks: | 

“Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes 
that he has thus answered the very strong objections 
which he has himself advanced. It is natural 
enough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, 
might mistake upon a question of natural history ; 
this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and fire, 
elements or not, were not the less useful to man. 
.... such errors as this are of no importance. 
They do not lead to revolutions, nor do they cause 
mental uneasiness ; above all, they clash with no 
interests, and might, therefore, without inconven- 
ience, last for millions of years. The physical 
world progresses as though they did not exist. 
But can it be thus with errors which affect the 
moral world? * Can it be conceived that a system 
of government absolutely false, consequently inju- 
rious, could be followed for many centuries, and 
among many nations, with the general consent of 
well-informed men? Can it be explained how such. 
a system could be connected with the constantly 
increasing prosperity of these nations? Mr. Say 
confesses that the argument which he combats is 
calculated to make a profound impression. Most 


104 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


certainly it is; and this impression remains; for 
Mr. Say has rather increased than diminished it.” 

Let us hear Mr. de Saint Chamans. 

“Tt has been only towards the middle of the 
last, the eighteenth century, when every subject and 
every principle have without exception been given 
up to the discussion of book-makers, that these fur- 
nishers of speculative ideas, applied to every thing 
and applicable to nothing, have begun to write 
upon the subject of political economy. There ex- 
isted previously a system of political economy, not 
written, but practiced by governments. Colbert 
was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbert gave 
the law to every state of Europe. Strange to say, 
he does so still, in spite of contempt and anathe- 
mas, in spite too of the discoveries of the modern 
school. This system, which has been called by our 
writers the mercantile system, consisted in’... . . 
checking by prohibition or import duties such 
foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our 
manufactures by competition..... This system 
has been declared, by all writers on political econ- 
omy, of every school,* to be weak, absurd, and 
calculated to impoverish the countries where it pre- 
vails. Banished from books, it has taken refuge in 


* Might we not say: It is a powerful argument against Messrs. Ferrier 
and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political economy, of every school, 
that is to say, all men who have studied the question, come to this conelu- 
sion: After all, freedom is better than restriction, and the laws of God 
wiser than those of Mr. Colbert, 


THEORY—PRACTICE. 105 


the practice of all nations, greatly to the surprise 
of those who cannot conceive that in what concerns 
the wealth of nations, governments should, rather 
than be guided by the wisdom of authors, prefer 


the long experience of a system, etr..... It is 
above all inconceivable to them that the French 
government 2" i". should obstinately resist the 


new lights of political economy, and maintain in 
its practice the old errors, pointed out by all our 
meriters. er. But I am devoting too much time 
to this mercantile system, which, unsustained by 
writers, has only facts in its favor!” 

Would it not be supposed from this language 
that political economists, in claiming for each indi- 
vidual the free disposition of his own property, have, 
like the TFourierists, stumbied upon some new, 
strange, and chimerical system of social govern 
ment, some wild theory, without precedent in the 
annals of human nature? It does appear to me, 
that, if in all this there is any thing doubtful, and 
of fanciful or theoretic origin, it is not free trade, 
but protection ; not the operating of exchanges, but 
the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturn 
artificially the natural order of things. 

The question, however, is not here to compare 
and judge of the merits of the two systems, but 
simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by 
experience. 

You, Messrs. monopolists, maintain that facts are 


for you, and that we on our side have only theory. 
10 


106 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


You even flatter yourselves that this long series 
of public acts, this old experience of Hurope which 
you invoke, appeared imposing to Mr. Say; and I 
confess that he has not refuted you, with his hab- 
itual sagacity. 

I, for my part, cannot consent to give up to you 
the domain of facts; for while on your side you 
can advance only limited and special facts, we can 
oppose to them universal facts, the free and volun- 
tary acts of all men. 

What do we maintain? and what do you main- 
tain ? 

We maintain that ‘‘it is best to buy from others 
what we ourselves can ‘produce only at a higher 
price.” , 

You maintain that “itis best to make for our- 
selves, even though it should cost us more than to 
buy from others.” 

Now gentlemen, putting aside theory, demonstra- 
tion, reasoning, (things which seem to nauseate 
you,) which of these assertions is sanctioned by 
universal practice ? 

Visit our fields, workshops, forges, stores; look 
above, below, and around you; examine what is 
passing in your own household; observe your own 
actions at every moment, and say which principle 
it is, that directs these laborers, workmen, contrac- 
tors, and merchants ; say what is your own personal 
practice. 


THEORY—PRACTICE. 107 


Does the agriculturist make his own clothes? 
Does the tailor produce the grain which he con- 
sumes? Does not your housekeeper cease to make 
her bread at home, as soon as she finds it more 
economical to buy it from the baker? Do you lay 
down your pen to take up the blacking-brush in 
order to avoid paying tribute to the shoe-black ? 
Does not the whole economy of society depend 
upon a separation of occupations, a division of 
labor, in a word, upon mutual exchange of produc- 
tion, by which we, one and all, make a calculation 
which causes us to discontinue direct production, 
when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time 
and labor. iBaDS 

You are*not then sustained by practice, since it 
would be impossible, were you to search the world, 
to show usa single man who acts according to your 
principle. | 

You may answer that you never intended to make 
your principle the rule of individual relations. 
You confess that it would thus Gestroy all social ties, 
and force men to the isolated life of snails. You 
only contend that it governs 7n fact, the relations 
which are established between the agglomerations 
of the human family. 

We say that this assertion too is erroneous. A 
family, a.town, county, department, province, all 
are so many agglomerations, which, without any 
exception, all practically reject your principle; never, 


108 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


indeed, even think of it. Hach of these procures by 
barter, what would be more expensively procured 
by production. Nations would do the same, did 
you not by force prevent them. 

We, then, are the men who are guided by practice 
and experience. For to combat the interdict which 
you have specially put upon some international 
exchanges, we bring forward the practice and 
experience of all individuals, and of all agglomera- 
tions of individuals, whose acts being voluntary, 
render them proper to be given as proof in the 
question. But you, on your part, begin by forcing, 
by hindering, and then, adducing forced or forbidden 
acts, you exclaim: “Look; we can prove ourselves 
justified by example!” - 

You exclaim against our theory, and even against 
all theory. But are you certain, in laying down 
your prineiples, so antagonistic to ours, that you too 
are not building up theories? Truly, you too have 
your theory; but between yours and ours there is 
this difference: | 

Our theory is formed upon the observation of 
universal facts, universal sentiments, universal cal- 
culations and acts). We do nothing more than 
classify and arrange these, in order.to better under- 
stand them. It is so little opposed to practice, that 
it is in fact only practice explained. We look upon 
the actions of men as prompted by the instinct of 
self-preservation and of progress. What they do 


THEORY—PRACTICE. 109 


freely, willingly,—this is what we call Political 
Heonomy, or economy of society. We must repeat 
constantly that each man is practically an excellent 
political economist, producing or exchanging, as his 
advantage dictates. Hach by experience raises him- 
self to the science; or rather the science is nothing 
more than experience, scrupulously observed and 
methodically expounded. 

But your theory is theory in the worst sense of the 
word. You imagine procedures which are sanc- 
tioned by the experience of no living man, and 
then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. 
You cannot avoid having recourse to force; because, 
wishing to make men produce what they can more 
advantageously buy, you require them to give up an 
advantage, and to beled by a doctrine which implies 
contradiction even in its terms. ; 

I defy you too, to take this doctrine, which by 
your own avowal would be absurd in individual 
relations, and apply it, even in speculation, to trans- 
actions between families, towns, departments, or 
provinces. You yourselves confess that it is only 
applicable to internal relations. 

Thus it is that you are daily forced to repeat: 

“Principles can never be universal. What is 
well in an individual, a family, commune, or province, 
is 77 in a nation. What is good in detail—for 
instance: purchase rather than production, where 
purchase is more advantageous—is bad in a society, 


110 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


The political economy of individuals is not that of 
nations ;” and other such idle stuff, eusdem farine. 

And.all this for what? ‘To prove to us, that we 
cohsumers, we are your property! that we belong 
to you, soul and body! that you have an exclusive 
right on our stomachs and our limbs! that it is your 
right to feed and dress us at your own price, how- 
ever great your ignorance, your rapacity, or the 
inferiority of your work. 

Truly, then, your system is one not founded 
upon practice; it is one of abstraction—of extor- 
tion. 


XIV. 
CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. 


THERE is one thing which embarrasses me not a 
little; and it is this: 

Sincere men, taking upon the subject of political 
economy the point of view of producers, have 
arrived at this double formula: 

“A government should dispose of consumers 
subject to its laws in favor of home industry.” 

“Tt should subject to its laws foreign consumers, 
in order to dispose of them in favor of home 
industry.” 


CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES, 111 


The first of the formulas is that of Proteciion ; 
the second that of Oudtets. 

Both rest upon this proposition, called the Balance 
of Trade, that 

‘A people is impoverished by importations and 
enriched by exportations.” 

For if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a 
loss, nothing can be more natural than to restrain, 
even to prohibit importations. 

And if every foreign sale is a tribute received, a 
gain, nothing more natural than to create ouilets, 
even by force. | 

Protective System ; Colonial System.—These are 
only two aspects of the same theory. To prevent 
our citizens from buying from foreigners, and to 
force foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two con- 
sequences of one identical principle. 

It is impossible not to perceive that according to 
this doctrine, if it be true, the welfare of a country 
depends upon monopoly or domestic spoliation, and 
upon_conquest or foreign spoliation. 

Let us take a glance into one of these huts, 
perched upon the side of our Pyrenean range. 

The father of a family has received the little 
wages of his labor; but his half-naked children are 
shivering before a biting northern blast, beside a 
fireless hearth, and an empty table. There is wool, 
and wood, and corn, on the other side of the 
mountain, but these are forbidden to them; for the 


a1 9, SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


other side of the mountain is not France. Foreign 
wood must not warm the hearth of the poor shep- 
herd; his children must not taste the bread of Bis- 
cay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of 
Navarre. It is thus that the general good requires! 

The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them 
to the support of home industry, is an encroachment 
upon their liberty, the forbidding of an action 
(mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to 
morality! In a word, it is an act of injustice. 

But this, it is said, is necessary, or else home 
labor will be arrested, and a severe blow will be 
given to public prosperity. 

Thus then we must come to the melancholy con- 
clusion, that there is a radical incompatibility 
between the Just and the Useful. 7 

Again, if each people is interested in selling, and 
not in buying, a violent action and reaction must 
form the natural state of their mutual relations; for 
each will seek to force its productions upon all, and 
all will seek to repulse the productions of each. 

A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, 
according to this doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and 
to buy injurious, every international transaction 
must imply the benefiting of one people by the 
injuring of another. 

But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel 
to be advantageous to themselves, while they also, 
instinctively resist that which is injurious. From 


CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. 113 


hence then we raust infer that each nation bears 
within itself a natural force of expansion, and a not 
less natural force of resistance, which are equally 
injurious to all others. In other words, antagonism 
and war are the natural state of human society. 

_ Thus then the theory in discussion resolves itself 
into the two following axioms. In the affairs of a 
nation, | 

Utility is incompatible with the internal admin- 
istration of justice. 

Utility is incompatible with the maintenance of 
external peace. 

Well, what embarrasses and confounds me js, to 
explain how any writer upon public rights, any 
statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine of 
which the leading principle is so antagonistic to 
other incontestable principles, can enjoy one mo- 
ment’s repose or peace of mind. ; 

For myself, if such were my entrance upon the 
threshold of science, if I did not clearly perceive 
that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, are not 
only compatible, but closely connected, even identi- 
cal, I would endeavor to forget all I have learned; 
I would say: 

“Can it be possible that God can allow men to 
attain prosperity only through injustice and war? 
Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, that they can 
only renounce war and injustice by, at the same 


time, renouncing their own welfare? 
19 


114 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


“Am I not deceived by the false lights of a 
science. which can lead me to the horrible blasphemy 
implied in this alternative, and shall I dare to take 
it upon myself to. propose this as a basis for the 
legislation of a great people? When I find a long 
succession of illustrious and learned men, whose 
researches in the same science have led to more con- 
soling results; who, after having devoted their lives 
to its study, affirm that through it they see Liberty 
and Utility indissolubly linked with Justice and 
Peace, and find these great principles destined to 
continue on through eternity in infinite parallels, 
have they not in their favor the presumption which 
results from all that we know of the goodness and 
wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmo- 
ny of material creation? Can I lightly believe, in 
opposition to such a presumption and such imposing 
authorities, that this same God has been pleased to ~ 
put disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the 
moral world? No; before I can believe that all 
social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each 
other; before I can think them in constant, anar- 
chical and eternal conflict; above all, before I can 
seek to impose upon my fellow-citizens the impious 
‘system to which my reasonings have led me, I must 
retrace my steps, hoping, perchance, to find some 
point where I have wandered from my road.” — 

And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times 
repeated, I should still arrive at the frightful con- 


RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 115 


clusion that I am driven to choose between the 
Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, 
plunge into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid 
' participation in the affairs of my country, and leave 
to others the weight and responsibility of so fearful 
a choice. 


XV. 
RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 


Mr. de Saint Cricq has asked: “Are we sure 
that our foreign customers will buy from us as much 
as they sell us?” | 

Mr. de Dombasle says: .‘‘ What reason have we 
for believing that English producers will come to 
seek their supplies from us, rather than from any 
other nation, or that they will take from us a value 
equivalent to their exportations into France?” 

I cannot but wonder to see men who boast, above - 
all things, of being practical, thus reasoning wide 
of all practice ! 

In practice, there is perhaps no traffic which is a 
direct exchange of produce for produce. Since the 
use of money, no man says, I will seek shoes, hats, 
advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, 
the lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the 
exact equivalent of these in corn. Why should 


> 


116 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a 
restraint ? 

Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. 
One of its citizens makes a crop of corn. He casts 
it into the national circulation, and receives in 
exchange—what? Money, bank bills, securities, 
divisible to any extent, by means of which it will 
be lawful for him to withdraw when he pleases, 
and, unless prevented by just competition from the 
national circulation, such articles as he may wish. 
At the end of the operation, he will have withdrawn 
from the mass the exact equivalent of what he first 
cast into it, and in value, his consumption will exactly 
equal his production. 

If the exchanges of this nation with foreign 
nations are free, it is no longer into the national 
circulation but into the general circulation that each 
individual casts his produce, and from thence his 
consumption is drawn. He is not obliged to cal- 
culate whether what he casts into this general 
circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a 
foreigner; whether the notes he receives are given 
to him by a Frenchman or an Englishman, or 
whether the articles which he procures through 
means of this money are manufactured on this or 
the other side of the Rhine or the Pyrenees. One 
thing is certain; that each individual finds an exact 
balance between what he casts in and what he with- 
draws from the great common reservoir; and if 


RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 117 


this be true of each individual, it is not less true 
of the entire nation. 

The only difference between these two cases is, 
that in the last, each individual has open to him a 
larger market both for his sales and his purchases, 
and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity 
of making both to advantage. — 

The objection advanced against us here, is, that 
if all were to combine in not withdrawing from 
circulation the produce from any one individual, 
he, in his turn, could withdraw nothing from the 
mass. The same, too, would be the case with 
regard to a nation. 

Our answer is: If a nation can.no longer with- 
draw any thing from the mass of circulation, neither 
will it any longer cast any thing into it. It will 
work for itself’ It will be obliged to.submit to 
what, in advance, you wish to force upon it, viz., 
Isolation. And here you have the ideal of the 
prohibitive system. | 

Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you 
should inflict upon it now, and unnecessarily, this 
system, merely through fear that some day or other 
it might chance to be subjected to it without your 
assistance ? j 


118 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


AVI 


OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBI 
TIONISTS. 


SOME years since, being at Madrid, I went to the 
meeting of the Cortes. ‘The subject in discussion 
was a proposed treaty with Portugal, for improving 
the channel of the Douro. A member rose and 
said: If the Douro is made navigable, transporta- 
tion must become cheaper, and Portuguese grain 
will come into formidable competition with our 
national labor. I vote against the project, unless 
ministers will agree to increase our tariff so as to 
re-establish the equilibrium. 

Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the 
same question came before the Senate. A noble 
Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd. 
You guard at great expense the banks of the 
Douro, to prevent the influx into Portugal of 
Spanish grain, and at the same time you now 
propose, at great expense, to facilitate such an event. 
There is in this a want of consistency in which I 
can haye no part. Let the: Doure descend to our 
Sons as we have received it from our Fathers. 


A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. 119 


XVIL 
A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. 


I HAVE already remarked that when the observer 
has unfortunately taken his point of view from the 
position of producer, he cannot fail in his conclusions 
to clash with the general interest, because the pro- 
ducer, as such, must desire the existence of efforts, 
wants, and obstacles. 

I find a singular exemplification of this remark 
in a journal of Bordeaux. 

Mr. Simiot’ puts this question : 

Ought the railroad from- Paris into Spain to pre- 
sent a break or terminus at Bordeaux ? : 

This question he answers affirmatively. I will 
only consider one among the numerous reasons 
which he adduces in support of his opinion. 

The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he 
says) to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux, in 
order that goods and travelers stopping in this city 
should thus be forced to contribute to the profits of 
the boatmen, porters, commission merchants, hotel- 
keepers, etc. 

It is very evident that we have here again the 
interest of the agents of labor put before that of the 
‘consumer. , 

But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the 


120 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


road, and if such profit be conformable to the public 
interest, then Angouléme, Poictiers, Tours, Orleans, 
and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec, 
Chatellerault, etc., etc., would also petition for breaks; 
and this too would be for the general good and for 
the interest of national labor. For it is certain, that 
in proportion to the number of these breaks or ter- 
mini, will be the increase in consignments, commis- 
sions, lading, unlading, etc. ‘This system furnishes 
us the idea of a railroad made up of successive 
breaks; a negative railroad. 

Whether or not the Protectionists will allow it, 
most certain it is, that the restrictive principle is iden- 
tical with that which would maintain this system of 
breaks: it is the sacrifice of the consumer to the 
producer, of the end to the means. 


XVIUOTL 


‘““THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.” 


THE facility with which men resign themselves to 
ignorance in cases where knowledge is all-important 
to them, is often astonishing; and we may be sure 
that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, 
when he once brings himself to proclaimas a maxim 
that there are no absolute principles. 


“THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.” 121 


We enter into the legislative halls, and find that 
the question is, to determine whether the law will 
or will not allow of international exchanges. 

A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these ex- 
changes, foreign nations will overwhelm us with 
their produce. We will have cotton goods from 
England, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, 
silks from Italy, cattle from Switzerland, iron from 
Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no industrial 
pursuit will any longer be possible to us. 

Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and 
_the divers advantages with which nature has en- 
dowed these different countries, will be for us as 
though they did not exist. We will have no share 
in the benefits resulting from English skill, or 
Belgian mines, from the fertility of the Polish soil, 
or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by 
the cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the 
Italian climate. We will be obliged to seek by a 
forced and laborious production, what, by means of 
exchanges, would be much more easily obtained. 

Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mis- 
taken. But which? It is worth the trouble of ex- 
amining. There lie before us two roads, one of which 
leads inevitably to wretchedness. We must choose. 

To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the 
answer is easy: There are no absolute principles. 

This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only 


pleases idleness, but also suits ambition, 
12 


122 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free 
trade, should finally triumph, one little law would 
form our whole economical code. In the first case 
this would be: foreign trade ws forbidden; in the 
second : foreign trade is free; and thus, many great 
personages would lose their importance. 

But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is 
capriciously useful or injurious, and is governed by 
no natural law, if it finds no spur in its usefulness, 
no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be ap- 
preciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it 
has no absolute principles,—oh ! then it is necessary 
to deliberate, weigh, and regulate transactions, the 
conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of 
profits sought. This is an important charge, well 
calculated to give to those who execute it, large 
salaries, and extensive influence. 

Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have 
thought to myself: Here are a million of human 
beings who would die in a few days, if provisions 
of every kind did not flow in towards this vast me- 
tropolis. The imagination is unable to calculate the 
multiplicity of objects which to-morrow must enter 
its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitants from 
terminating in famine, riot, or pillage. And yet at 
this moment all are asleep, without feeling one 
moment's uneasiness, from the contemplation of this 
frightful possibility. On the other side, we see 
eighty departments who have this day labored, 


“MHERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.” 123 


without concert, without mutual understanding, for 
the victualing of Paris. How can each day bring 
just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, 
to this gigantic market? What is the ingenious 
and secret power which presides over the astonish- 
ing regularity of such complicated movements, a 
regularity in which we all have so implicit, though 
thoughtless, a faith; on which our comfort, our very 
existence depends? ‘This power is an absolute prin- 
cyple, the principle of freedom in exchanges. We 
have faith in that inner light which Providence has 
placed in the heart of all men; confiding to it the 
preservation and amelioration of our species ; iéer- 
est, since we.must give its name, so vigilant, so active, 
having so much forecast when allowed its free 
action. What would be your condition, inhabitants 
of Paris, if a minister, however superior his abilities, 
should undertake to substitute, in the place of this 
power, the combinations of his own genius? If he 
should think of subjecting to his own supreme 
direction this prodigious mechanism, taking all its 
springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, 
how, and on what conditions each article should be 
produced, transported, exchanged and consumed? 
Ah! although there is much suffering within your 
walls; although misery, despair, and perhaps star- 
vation, may call forth more tears than your warmest 
charity can wipe away, it is probable, it is certain, 
that the arbitrary intervention of government 


124 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


would infinitely multiply these sufferings, and 
would extend among you the evils which now reach 
but a small number of your citizens. 

If then we have such faith in this principle as 
applied to our private concerns, why should we not 
extend it to international transactions, which are 
assuredly less numerous, less delicate, and less com- 
plicated? And if it be not necessary for the pre- 
fect of Paris to regulate our industrial pursuits, to 
weigh our profits and our losses, to occupy himself 
with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the 
conditions of our labor in internal commerce, on 
what principle can it be necessary that the custom- 
house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pre- 
tend to exercise a protective power over our 
external commerce? 


XIX. 
NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 


AMONG the arguments advanced in favor of a 
restrictive system, we must not forget that which 
is drawn from the plea of national independence. 

“ What will we do,” it is asked, “in case of war, 
if we are at the mercy of England for our iron and 
coal?” 


NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 125 


The English monopolists, on their side, do not 
fail to exclaim: ‘ What will become of Great 
Britain in case of war if she depends upon France 
for provisions ?” 

One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and 
this is, that the dependence which results from com- 
mercial transactions, is a reciprocal dependence. 
We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, 
in so far as foreign nations are dependent upon us. 
This is the essence of soczety. The breaking off of 
natural relations places a nation, not in an inde- 
pendent position, but in a state of isolation. 

And remark that the reason given for this isola- 
tion, is that 1t is a necessary provision for war, 
while the act is itself a commencement of war. It 
renders war easier, less burdensome, and conse-. 
quently less unpopular. If nations were to one 
another permanent outlets for mutual produce; if 
their respective relations were such that they could 
not be broken without inflicting the double suffer- 
ing of privation and of over-supply, there could 
then no longer be any need of these powerful fleets 
which ruin, and these great armies which crush 
them; the peace of the: world could no more be 
compromised by the whim of a Thiers or a Palmer- 
ston, and wars would cease, from want of resources, 
motives, pretexts, and popular sympathy. 

I know that I shall be reproached (for it is the 
fashion of the day) for placing interest, vile and 


126 SOPUISMS OF PROTECTION. 


prosaic interest, at the foundation of the fraternity 
of nations. It would be preferred: that this should 
be based upon charity, upon love; that there should 
be in it some self-denial, and that clashing a little 
with the material welfare of men, it should bear the 
merit of a generous sacrifice. 

When will we have done with such puerile 
declamations? We contemn, we revile znerest, that 
is. to say, the good and the useful, (for if all men are 
interested in an object, how can this object be other 
than good in itself?) as though this interest were 
not the necessary, eternal, and indestructible mover, 
to the guidance of which Providence has confided 
human perfectibility !_ One would suppose that the 
utterers of such sentiments must be models of dis- 
interestedness ; but does the public not begin to 
perceive with disgust, that this affected language 
is the stain of those pages for which it oftenest 
pays the highest price ? 

What! because comfort and peace are correla- 
tive, because it has pleased God to establish so 
beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you would 
blame me when I admire and adore his decrees, 
and for accepting with gratitude his laws, which 
make justice a requisite for happiness! You will 
consent to have peace only when it clashes with 
your welfare, and liberty is irksome if it imposes 
no sacrifices! What then prevents you, if self- 
denial has so many charms, from exercising it as. 


NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 127 


much as you desire in your private actions? 
Society will be benefited by your so doing, for some 
one must profit by your sacrifices. But itis the 
height of absurdity to wish to impose such a prin- 
ciple upon mankind generally; for the self-denial 
of all, is the sacrifice of all. ‘This is evil systema- 
tized into theory. 

But, thanks be to Heaven! these declamations 
may be written and read, and the world continues 
nevertheless to obey its great mover, its great cause 
of action, which, spite of all denials, is znterest. 

It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of 
such sublime self-abnegation quoted in support 
even of Spoliation; and yet to this tends all this 
_pompous show of disinterestedness! These men 
so sensitively delicate, that they are determined not 
to enjoy even peace, if it must be propped by the 
vile znterest of men, do not hesitate to pick the 
pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. 
For what tariff protects the poor? Gentlemen, we 
pray you, dispose as you please of what belongs to 
yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to use, 
or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the 
fruit of our own labor, the sweat of our own brows. 
Declaim as you will about self-sacrifice; that is all 
pretty enough ; but we beg of you, do not at the 
same time forget to be honest. 


128 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


AD Ne 


HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAL LABOR. 


DESTRUCTION of machinery—prohibition of for- 
eign goods. These are two acts proceeding from 
the same doctrine. 

We do meet with men who, while they rejoice 
over the revelation of any great invention, favor 
nevertheless the protective policy; but such men 
are very inconsistent. 

What is the objection they adduce against free 
trade? ‘That it causes us to seek from foreign and 
more easy production, what would otherwise be 
the result of home production. In a word, that it 
injures domestic industry. 

On the same principle, can it not be objected 
to machinery, that it accomplishes through natural 
agents what would otherwise be the result of 
manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human 
labor ? 

The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of 
production than the French laborer, is, with regard 
to the latter, a veritable economical machine, which 
crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of 
machinery capable of executing any work at a less: 
price than could be done by any given number of 
hands, is, a3 regards these hands, in the position of 


HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAL LABOR, 129 


a foreign competiicr, who paralyzes them by hig 
rivalry. | 

- If then it be judicious to protect home labor 
against the competition of foreign labor, it cannot 
be less so to protect human labor against mechanical 
labor. 

Whoever adheres to the protective system, ought 
not, if his brain be possessed of any logical powers, 
to stop at the prohibition of foreign produce, but 
should extend this prohibition to the produce of 
the loom and of the plough. 

I approve therefore of the logic of those who, 
whilst they cry out against the zrwndaton of foreign 
merchandise, have the courage to declaim equally 
against the excessive production resulting from the 
inventive power of mind. | 

Of this number is Mr. de Saint Chamans. ‘One 
of the strongest arguments, (says he) which can be 
adduced against free trade, and the too extensive 
employment of machines, is, that many workmen 
are deprived of work, either by foreign competition, 
which depresses manufactures, or by machinery, 
which takes the place of men in workshops.” - 

Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or 
rather the identity which exists between ¢mportation 
and machinery, and was, therefore, in favor of pro- 
scribing both. There is some pleasure in having 
to do with intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus 
carry through a chain of reasoning. 

126 


130 -SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


But let us look at the difficulty into which they 
are here led. 

If it be true, @ priori, that the domain of invention, 
and that of labor, can be extended only to the 
injury of one another, it would follow that the 
fewest workmen would be employed in countries 
(Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most 
machinery. And if it be, on the contrary, proved, 
that machinery and manual labor coexist to a 
greater extent among rich nations than among 
savages, it must necessarily follow, that these two 
powers do not interfere with one another. 

I cannot understand how a thinking being can 
rest satisfied with the following dilemma : 

Hither the inventions of man do not injure labor ; 
and this, from general facts, would appear to be 
the case, for there exists more of both among the 
English and the French, than among-the Sioux and 
the Cherokees. If such be the fact, I have gone 
upon a wrong track, although unconscious at what 
point. I have wandered from my road, and I would 
commit high treason against humanity, were I to 
introduce such an error into the legislation of my 
country. 

Or else the results of the inventions of 141d limit 
manual labor, as would appear to be proved from: 
limited facts; for every day we see some machine 
rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps 
a hundred workmen. If this be the case, I am 


HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAL LABOR. 131 


forced to acknowledge, as a fact, the existence of a 
flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism between 
the intellectual and the physical power of man; 
between his improvement and his welfare. Icannot 
avoid feeling that the Creator should have bestowed 
upon man either reason or bodily strength ; moral 
force, or brutal force; and that it has been a bitter 
mockery to confer upon him faculties which must 
inevitably counteract and destroy one another. 

This is an important difficulty, and how is it put 
aside? By this singular apothegm: 

“In political economy there are no absolute princt- 
ples.” | ; 

There are no principles! Why, what does this 
mean, but that there are no facts? Principles are 
only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class of 
well-proved facts. 

‘Machinery and Importation must certainly have 
effects. These effects must be either good or bad. 
Here there may be a difference of opinion as to 
which is. the correct conclusion, but whichever is 
adopted, it must be capable of being submitted to 
the formula of one or other of these principles, viz. : 
Machinery is a good, or, Machinery is an evil. 
Importations are beneficial, or, Importations are 
injurious. But to say there are no principles, is cer- 
tainly the last degree of debasement to which the 
human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I 
blush for my country, when I hear so monstrous 


182 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


an’absurdity uttered before, and approved by, the 
‘French Chambers, the élite of the nation, who thus 
justify themselves for imposing upon the country 
laws, of the merits or demerits of which they are 
perfectly ignorant. 

But, it may be said to me, finish, then, by de- 
stroying the Sophism. Prove to us that machines 
are not injurious to human labor, nor importations 
to national labor. 

In a work of this nature, such demonstrations 
cannot be very complete. My aim is rather to point 
out than to explain difficulties, and to excite reflec- 
tion rather than to satisfy it. The mind never 
attains to a firm conviction which is not wrought 
out by its own labor. I will, however, make an 
effort to put it upon the right track. 

The adversaries of importations and of machinery 
are misled by allowing themselves to form too hasty 
a judgment from immediate and transitory effects, 
instead of following these up to their general and 
final consequences. 

The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of 
machinery, is, that it renders superfluous, in the 
production of any given result, a certain quantity 
of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. 
This result being obtained at less labor, is given to 
the public at a less price. ‘The amount thus saved 
to the buyers, enables them to procure other com- 
forts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely 


HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAI ,wABOR. 183 


in proportion to the saving they have made upon 
the one article which the machine has given to 
them at an easier price. Thus the standard of 
labor is not lowered, though that of comfort is 
raised, 

Let me endeavor to render this double fact more 
striking by an example. 

I suppose that ten million of hats, at fifteen francs 
each, are yearly consumed in France. This would 
aive to those employed in this manufacture one 
hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented 
which enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at 
ten francs. The sum given to the maintenance of 
this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if we sup- 
pose the consumption not to be increased) to one 
hundred millions. But the other fifty millions are 
not, therefore, withdrawn from the maintenance of 
human labor. The buyers of hats are, from the 
surplus saved upon the price of that article, enabled 
to satisfy other wants, and thus, in the same propor- 
tion, to encourage general industry. John buysa 
pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article 
of furniture, etc. Human labor, as a whole, still 
receives the encouragement of the whole one hun- 
dred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with 
the same supply of hats as before, receive also the 
increased number of comforts accruing from the 
fifty millions, which the use of the machine has 
been the means of saving to them. These comforts 


134 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


are the net gain which France has received fram the 
invention. It isa gratuitous gift; a tribute exacted 
from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, 
during this process, a certain sum of labor will 
have been displaced, forced to change its direction ; 
but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or 
even diminished. 

The case is the same with regard to importations. 
I will resume my hypothesis. 

France, according to our supposition, manufac- 
tured ten millions of hats at fifteen francs each. 
Let us now suppose that a foreign producer brings 
them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that 
national labor is thus in no wise diminished. It will 
be obliged to produce the equivalent of the hundred 
millions which go to pay for the ten millions of 
hats at ten francs, and then there remains to each 
buyer five francs, saved on the purchase of his hat, 
or, in total, fifty millions, which serve for the acqui- 
sition of other comforts, and the encouragement of 
other labor. 

The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and 
the additional comforts accruing from the fifty 
millions saved in the purchase of hats, are the net 
profit of importation or free trade. 

It is no argument to try and alarm us by a picture 
of the sufferings which, in this hypothesis, would 
result from the displacement or change of labor. 

For, if prohibition had never existed, labor 


RAW MATERIAL. 138 


would have classed itself in accordance with the 
laws of trade, and no displacement would have 
taken place. 

If prohibition has led to an artificial and unprc- 
ductive classification of labor, then it is prohibition, 
and not. free trade, which is responsible for the 
inevitable displacement which must result in the 
transition from evil to good. 

It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, 
because an abuse which has been permitted a tem- 
porary existence, cannot be corrected without 
' wounding the interests of those who have profited 
by it, it ought, therefore, to claim perpetual dura- 
tion. 


XT. 
RAW MATERIAL. 


It is said that no commerce is so advantageous 
as that in which manufactured articles are exchanged 
for raw material; because the latter furnishes aliment 
for national labor. 

And it is hence concluded: 

That the best regulation of duties, would be to 
give the greatest possible facilities to the importation 
cf raw material, and at the same time to check that 
of the finished article. 


ee all 


adil 


136 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


There is, in political economy, no more generally 
accredited Sophism than this. It serves for argu- 
ment not only to the protectionists, but also to the 
pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter 
capacity that its most mischievous tendencies are 
called into action. For a good cause suffers much 
less in being attacked, than in being badly de- 
fended. | 

Commercial liberty must probably pass through 
the same ordeal as liberty in every other form. It 
can only dictate laws, after having first taken thor- 
ough possession of men’s minds. If, then, it be 
true that a reform, to be firmly established, must 
be generally understood, it follows that nothing can 
so much retard it, as the misleading of public opin- 
ion. And what more calculated to mislead opinion 
than writings, which, while they proclaim free 
trade, support the doctrines of monopoly ? 

It is some years since three great cities of France, 
viz., Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre, combined in 
opposition to the restrictive system. France, all 
Europe, looked anxiously and suspiciously at this 
apparent declaration in favor of free trade. Alas! 
it was still the banner of monopoly which they fol- 
lowed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a 
little more absurd than that of which they seemed 
to desire the destruction! Thanks to the Sophism 
which I would now endeavor to deprive of its dis- 
guise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an addi- 


RAW MATERIAL. 137 


tional incongruity, the old doctrine of protection to 
national labor. What is, in fact, the prohibitive 
system? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq answer 
for us. 

“Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because 
it creates supplies for the gratification of our neces- 
sities; and universal comfort consists in the abund- 
ance of these supplies.” Here we have the prin- 
ciple. 

“But this abundance ought to be the result of 
national labor. If it were the result of foreign labor, 
national labor must receive an inevitable check.” 
Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism). 

“What, then, ought to be the course of an agri- 
cultural and manufacturing country? It ought to 
reserve its market for the produce of its own soil 
and its own industry.” Here is the object. 

“Tn order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, 
and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent 
the influx of produce from foreign soils and foreign 
industry.” Here is the means. 

Let us now compare this system with that of the 
petition from Bordeaux. 

This divided articles of merchandise into three 
classes. ‘The first class includes articles of food 
and raw material untouched by human labor. A 
judicious system of political economy would require 
that this class should be exempt from taxation.” Here 
we have the principle of no labor, no protection. 


138 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


‘The second class is composed of articles which 
have received some preparation for manufacture. 
This preparation would render reasonable the impo- 
sition of some duties.” Here we find the commence- 
ment of protection, because, at the same time, like- 
wise commences the demand for national labor. 

“The third class comprehends finished articles, 
which can, under no circumstances, furnish material 
for national labor. We consider this as the most 
fit for taxation.” Here we have at once the maxi- 
mum of labor, and, consequently, of production. 

The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed 
foreign labor as injurious to national labor. This 
is the error of the prohibitive system. 

They desired the French market to be reserved 
for French labor. This.is the object of the prohibitive 
system. 

They demanded that foreign labor should be sub- | 
jected to restrictions and taxes. These are the 
means of the prohibitive system. 

What difference, then, can we possibly discover 
to exist between the Bordalese petitioners and the 
Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and that is 
simply the greater or less extension which is given 
to the signification of the word labor. 

Mr. de Saint ‘Crieq, taking it in its widest sense, 
is, therefore, in favor of protecting every thing. 

“Labor,” he says, “eonstitutes the whole wealth 
of a nation. Protection should be for the agricul- 


RAW MATERIAL. 139 


tural interest, and the whole agricultural interest ; 
for the manufacturing interest, and the whole manu- 
facturing interest; and th‘s principle I will contin- 
ually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber.” 

The petitioners consider no labor but that of the 
manufacturers, and accordingly, it is that, and that 
alone, which they would wish to admit to the favors 
of protection. 

“Raw material being entirely wntouched by human 
labor, our system should exempt it from taxes. 
Manufactured articles furnishing no material for 
national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxa- 
tion.” 

There is no question here as to.the propriety of 
protecting national labor. Mr. de Saint Crieq 
and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this point. 
We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown 
how entirely we differ from both of them. 

The question to be determined, is, whether it is 
Mr. de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give to the 
word labor its proper acceptation. And we must 
confess that Mr. de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in 
the right. The following dialogue might be sup- 
posed between them : 

Mr. de Saint Cricg—You agree that national 
labor ought to be protected. You agree that no 
foreign labor can be introduced into our market, 
without destroying an equal quantity of our national 
labor. But you contend that there are numerous 


140 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


articles of merchandise possessing value, for they 
are sold, and which are nevertheless untouched by 
human labor, Among these you name corn, flour, 
meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, 
wool, skins, seeds, ete. 

If you can prove to me, that the value of these 
things is not dependent upon labor, I will agree 
that it is useless to protect them. 

Butif I can prove to you that there is as much 
labor put upon a hundred frances worth of wool, as 
upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought 
to acknowledge that protection is the right as much 
of the one, as of the other. 

Task you then why this bag of wool is worth a 
hundred francs? Is it not because this is its price » 
of production? And what is the price of production, 
but the sum which has been distributed in wages 
for labor, payment of skill, and interest on money, 
among the various laborers and capitalists, who 
have assisted in the production of the article ? 

The Petitioners.—It is true that with regard to 
wool you may be right; buta bag of corn, a bar of 
iron, a hundred weight of coal, are these the pro- 
duce of labor? Is it not nature which creates them ? 

Mr. de St. Cricg—Without doubt, nature creates 
these substances, but itis labor which gives them 
their value. I have myself, in saying that labor 
creates material objects, used a false expression, 
which has led me into many farther errors. No 


RAW MATERIAL. 141 


man can create. No man can bring any thing from 
nothing; and if production is used as a synonym 
for creation, then indeed our labor must all be 
useless. ; 

The agriculturist does not pretend that he has 
created the corn; but he has given it its value. He 
has by his own labor, and by that of his servants, 
his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn 
substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. 
What more is effected by the miller who converts 
it into flour, or by the baker who makes it into 
bread ? 

In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, 
numerous operations are firstnecessary. Before the 
intervention of any human labor, the real primary 
matertals of this article are air, water, heat, gas, 
light, and the varioussalts which enter into its com- 
position. These are indeed untouched by human 
labor, for they have no value, and I have never 
dreamed of their needing protection. But a first 
labor converts these substances into forage; asecond 
into wool; a third into thread ; a fourth into cloth: 
and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, 
that all these contributions to the work, from the 
first furrow of the plough, to the last stitch of the 
needle, are not labor ? ; 

And because, for the sake of speed and greater 
perfection in the accomplishment of the final object, 
these various branches of labor are divided among 


142 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


as many classes of workmen, you, by a arbitrary 
distinction, determine that the order in which the 
various branches of labor follow each other shall 
regulate their importance, so that while the first is 
not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall. 
receive all the favors of protection. 

The Petitioners.—Yes, we begin to understand 
that neither wool nor corn are entirely independent 
of human labor; but certainly the agriculturist has 
not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do 
by his own labor, and that of his workmen ; nature 
has assisted him ; and if there is some labor, at least 
all is not labor, in the production of corn. 

Mr. de St. Oricg.—But it is the labor alone which 
gives it value. I grant that nature has assisted in 
the production of grain. I will even grant that it 
is exclusively her work ; but I must confess at least 
that I have constrained her to it by my labor. And 
remark, moreover, that when I sell my corn, it is 
not the work of nature which I make you pay for, 
but my own. 

You will perceive, also, by following up your 
manner of arguing, that neither will manufactured 
articles be the production of labor. Does not the 
manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? 
Does he not by the assistance of ¢ieam-machinery 
force into his service the weight of the atmosphere, 
as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of 
its humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who 


RAW MATERIAL. } 143 


has created the laws of gravitation, transmission of 
forces and of affinities? 

The Petitioners.—W ell, well, we will give up wooi, 
but assuredly coal is the work, the exclusive work, 
of nature. This, at least, is independent of all human 
labor.» 

Mr. de St. Cricg.—Yes, nature certainly has made 
coal; but labor has made tts value. Where was the 
value of coal during the millions of years when it lay 
unknown and buried a hundred feet below the sur- 
face of the earth? It was necessary to seek it. 
Here was labor. It was necessary to transport it to 
_amarket. Again this was labor. The price which 
you pay for coal in the market is the remuneration 
given to these labors of digging and transportation.* 

We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the 
side of Mr. de St. Cricq, and that the value of un- 
manufactured as of manufactured articles, represents 
always the expense, or what is.the same thing, the 
labor of production; that it is impossible to con- 
ceive of an article bearing a value, independent of 


* Ido not, for many reasons, make,explicit mention of such portion of 
the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, etc. Firstly: 
because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be seen that it is 
always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment of anterior Zavor. 
Secondly: because, under the general labor, I include not only the salary 
of the workmen, but the legitimate payment of all co-operation in the 
work of production. Thirdly: finally, and above all, because the produc- 
tion of the manufactured articles is, like that of the raw material, bur- 
dened with interests and remunerations; entirely independent of manwat 
‘abor; and that the objection, in itself, might be equally applied to the 
Enest manufacture and to the ronghest agricultural process. 


144 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTIUN. 


human labor ; that the distinction made by the 
petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of 
an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous 
in practice; for it would thence result that the one- 
third of the French occupied in manufactures, 
would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because 
they produce by labor ; while the two other thirds, 
formed by the agricultural population, would be left 
to struggle against competition, under pretense that 
they produce without labor. 

It will, I know, be insisted that it is advanta- 
geous to a nation to import the raw material, 
whether or not it be the result of labor; and to 
export manufactured articles. This is a very gen- 
erally received ernnce 

“In proportion,” says the petition of Beaded tee 
“as raw material is abundant, manufactures will 
increase and flourish.” 

“The abundance of raw material,” it elsewhere 
says, ‘gives an unlimited Boone to labor in those 
countries where it prevails.” 

‘Raw material,” says the petition from Havre, 
“)being the ceeen of labor, should be regulated 
on a different system, and ought to be admitted 
ummediately and at the lowest rate.” 

The same petition asks, that the protection of 
manufactured articles should be reduced, not zmme- 
diately, but at some indeterminate time, not to the 
lowest rate of entrance, but to twenty per cent. 


RAW MATERIAL. 145 


“ Among other articles,” says the petition of 
Lyons, “of which the low price and the abundance 
are necessary, the manufacturers name all raw 
material,” 

All this is based upon error. 

All value is, we have seen, the representative of 
labor. Now itis undoubtedly true that manufac- 
turing labor increases ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the 
value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a hun- 
dred-fold increased profits throughout the nation ; 
and from this fact is deduced the following argu- 
ment: The production of a hundred weight of iron, 
is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various 
workers therein engaged. This hundred weight of 
iron, converted into watch-springs, is increased in 
value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who 
can pretend that the nation is not more interested 
in securing the ten thousand francs, than the fif- 
teen francs worth of labor? 

In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international 
exchanges are, no more than individual exchanges, 
effected through weight and measure. The ex- 
change is not between a hundred weight of unman- 
ufactured iron, and a hundred weight of watch- 
springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, 
and a pound of wool just manufactured into cash- 
mere, but between a fixed value in one of these 
articles, and a fixed equal vaiue in another. To 


exchange equal value with equal value, is to ex- 
14 


146 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


change equal labor with equal labor, and it is there- 
fore not true that the nation which sells its hundred 
francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains 
more than the one which furnishes its hundred 
francs worth of wool or of iron. 

‘In a country where no law can be passed, no 
contribution imposed without the consent of the 
governed, the public can be robbed, only after it 
has first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the 
primary, the raw material of every act of extortion 
to which we are subjected, and it may safely be 
predicted of every Sophism, that it is the forerunner 
of an act of Spohation. Good Public, whenever 
therefore you detect a Sophism in a petition, let me 
advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for 
be assured, it is that which is particularly the point 
of attack. 

Let us then examine what is the secret design 
which the ship-owners of. Bordeaux and Havre, and 
the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle in 
upon us by this distinction between agricultural 
produce and manufactured produce. / 

“Tt is,” say the petitioners of Bordeaux, “ prin- 
cipally in this first class (that which comprehends 
raw material, untouched by human labor) that we 
find the principal encouragement of our merchant ves- 
SSI. A. wise system of political economy 
would require that this class should not be taxed. 
woe... Lhe second class (articles which have 


RAW MATERIAL. 147 


received some preparation) may be considered as 
taxable. The third (articles which have received 
from labor all the finish of which they are capable) 
we regard as most proper for taxation.” 

“Considering,” say the petitioners of Havre, 
“that it is indispensable to reduce zmmediately and 
to the lowest rate, the raw material, in order that 
manufacturing industry may give employment to 
our merchant vessels, which furnish its first and 
indispensable means of labor.” 

The manufacturers could not allow themselves to 
be behindhand in civilities towards the ship-own- 
ers, and accordingly the petition of Lyons demands 
the free introduction of raw material, “in order to 
prove,” it remarks, ‘that the interests of manufac- 
turing towns are not opposed to those of maritime 
Cities.” | 

This may be true enough; but it must be con- 

fessed that both, taken in the sense of the petition- 
ers, are terribly adverse to the interest of agricul- 
ture and of consumers. 

This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your 
subtle distinctions! You wish the law to oppose 
the maritime transportation of manufactured articles, 
in order that the much more expensive transporta- 
tion of the raw material should, by its larger bulk, 
in its rough, dirty and unimproved condition, fur- 
nish a more extensive business to your merchant 
vessels. And this is what you calla wise system of 
poutical economy [ 


148 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Why not also petition for a law requiring that 
fir-trees, imported from Russia, should not be admit- 
ted without their branches, bark, and roots; that 
Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, 
and Buenos Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance 
into our ports, while still hanging to the dead bones 
and putrefying bodies to which they belong? 

The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain 
a majority in the Chambers, will no doubt soon 
favor us with a law forbidding the manufacture, at 
Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, 
they would consider it a wise law, which would, by 
forcing the transportation of ten casks of wine 
instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian 
industry an wdispensable encouragement to ws labor, 
and, at the same time, give employment to railroad 
locomotives! . 

Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes 
upon the following simple truth? 

Labor and industry, in their general object, have 
but one legitimate aim, and this is the public good. 
To create useless industrial pursuits, to favor super- 
fluous transportation, to maintain a superfluous 
labor, not for the good of the public, but at the 
expense of the public, is to act upon a petitio principtt. 
For it is the result of labor, and not labor itself, 
which is a desirable object. All labor, without a 
result, is clear loss. ‘'T'o pay sailors for transporting 
rough dirt and filthy refuse across the ocean, is 


METAPHORS. 149 


_ about as reasonable as it would be to engage their 
services, and pay them for pelting the water with 
pebbles. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that 
political Sophisms, notwithstanding their infinite 
variety, have one point in common, which is the 
constant confounding of the means with the end, 
and the development of the former at the expense 
of the latter. 


ONE 


METAPHORS. 


A Sopuism will sometimes expand and extend 
itself through the whole tissue of a long and tedious 
theory. Oftener it contracts into a principle, and 
hides itself in one word. 

“Heaven preserve us,” said Paul Louis, ‘ from 
the Devil and from the spirit of metaphor!” And, 
truly, it might be difficult to determine which of 
the two sheds the most noxious influence over our 
planet. The Devil, you will say, because it is he 
who implants in our hearts the spirit of spoliation. 
Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checking 
abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is 
the genius of Sophism which paralyzes this resist- 
ance, The sword which the spirit of evil places 


150 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, 
if the shield of him who is attacked were not shat- 
tered in his grasp by the spirit of Sophism. Mal- 
branche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the 
frontispiece of his book this sentence: Hire as the 
cause of human misery. 

Let tis notice what passes in the world. Ambi- 
tious hypocrites may take a sinister interest in 
spreading, for instance, the germ of national enmi- 
ties. The noxious seed may, in its developments, 
lead to a general conflagration, check civilization, 
spill torrents of blood, and draw upon the country 
that most terrible of scourges, tnvasion. Such 
hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the 
opinion of other nations, the people among whom 
they prevail, and force those who retain some love 
of justice to blush for their country. These are 
fearful evils, and it would be enough that the pub- 
lic should have a clear view of them, to induce 
them to secure themselves against the plotting of 
those who would expose them to such heavy 
chances. How, then, are they kept in darkness? 
How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three 
or four words is forced, changed, and depraved— 
and all is said. 

Such is the use made, for instance, of the word 
invasion. 

A master of French 3 iron-works, exclaims: Save 
us from the zzvasion of English iron. An-English 


METAPHORS. 151 


landholder cries; Let us oppose the znvasion of 
French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are 
bent upon raising barriers between these two nations, 
Thence follows isolation ; isolation leads to hatred ; 
hatred to war; and war to invasion. What mat- 
ters it? say the two Sophisis; is it not better to 
expose ourselves to a possible invasion, than to 
meet a certain one? And the people believe; and 
the barriers are kept up. 

And yet what analogy can exist between an 
exchange and an invasion? What resemblance 
can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, 
vomiting fire, death, and desolation over our cities— 
and a merchant vessel, which comes to offer in free 
and peaceable exchange, produce for produce ? 

Much in the same way has the word znundation 
been abused. This word is generally taken in 
a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent occur- 
rence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away 
harvests. But if, as is the case in the inundations 
of the Nile, they were to leave upon the soil a 
superior value to that which they carried away, we 
ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. 
Would it not be well, before declaiming against the 
mundations of foreign produce, and checking them 
with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to cer- 
tify ourselves whether these inundations are of the 
number which desolate, or of those which fertilize 
a country? What would we think of Mehemet 


152 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Ali, if, instead of constructing, at great expense, 
dams across the Nile to increase the extent of its 
inundations, he were to scatter his piasters in at- 
tempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue 
Egypt from the defilement of the foreign mud 
which is swept down upon it from the mountains 
of the Moon? Exactly such a degree of wisdom 
do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we 
strive to preserve our country.... From what? 
From the blessings with which Nature has gifted 
other climates. 

Among the metaphors which sometimes conceal, 
each in itself, a whole theory of evil, there is none 
more common than that which is presented under 
the words tribute and tributary. 

These words are so frequently employed as syno- 
nyms of purchase and purchaser, that the terms are 
now used almost indifferently. And yet there is as 
distinct a difference between a trabute, and a purchase, 
as between a robbery and an exchange. It appears 
to me that it would be quite as correct to say, Car- 
touche has broken open my strong box, and has 
bought a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I 
have heard done to our honorable deputies, We 
have paid in tribute to Germany the value of a thou- 
sand horses which she has sold us. | 

The action of Cartouche was not a purchase, 
because he did not put, and with my consent, into 
my strong box an equivalent value to that which 


METAPHORS. 158 


he took out. Neither could the purchase-money 
paid to Germany be tribute, because it was not on 
our part a forced payment, gratuitously received on 
hers, but a willing compensation from us for a 
thousand horses, which we ourselves judged to be 
worth 500,000. franes. 

Is if necessary then seriously to criticise such 
abuses of language? Yes, for very seriously are 
they put forth in our books and journals. Nor can 
we flatter ourselves that they are the careless ex- 
pressions of uneducated writers, ignorant even of 
the terms of their own language. ‘They are cur- 
rent with a vast majority, and among the most dis- 
tinguished of our writers. We find them in the 
mouths of our d’Argouts, Dupins, Villéles; of 
peers, deputies and ministers; men whose words . 
become laws, and whose influence might establish 
the most revolting Sophisms, as the basis of the 
administration of their country. 

A. celebrated modern Philosopher has added to 
the categories of Aristotle the Sophism which con- 
sists In expressing in one word a petieo principir. 
He cites several examples, and might have added 
the word ¢ributary to his nomenclature. For 
instance, the question is to determine whether 
foreign purchases are useful or hurtful. You 
answer, hurtful. And why? Because they ren-— 
der us tributary to foreigners.. Truly here is a word, 


which begs the question at once. 
15 


154 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


How has this delusive figure of spee h istro- 
duced itself into the rhetoric of monopolists ? 

Money is withdrawn from the country to satisfy 
the rapacity of a victorious enemy: money is also 
withdrawn from the country to pay for merchandise. 
The analogy is established between the two cases, 
calculating only the point of resemblance and 
abstracting that by which they differ. 

And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reim- 
bursement in the first case, and the reimbursement 
freely agreed upon in the second, establishes 
between them so decided a difference, as to render 
it impossible to class them under the same cate- 
gory. To be obliged, with a dagger at your throat, 
to give a hundred franes, or to give them willingly 
_ in order to obtain a desired object,—truly these are 
cases in which we can perceive little similarity. It 
might just as correctly be said, that it is a matter 
of indifference whether we eat our bread, or have 
it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is 
destroyed. We here draw a false conclusion, as in 
the case of the word tribute, by a vicious manner 
of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude 
between two cases, their resemblance only being 
noticed and their difference suppressed. 


CONCLUSION, 155 


CONCLUSION. 


Aut the Sophisms which I have so far com: 
bated, relate to the restrictive policy; and some 
even on this subject, and those of the most remark- © 
able, I have, in pity to the reader, passed over: 
acquired rights ; unrssableness ; exhaustion of money, 
éfc., etc. 

But Social economy is not confined within this 
narrow circle. Fouricrism, Saint Simonism, Com- 
monism, agrarianism, anti-rentism, mysticism, sen- 
timentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations 
for a chimerical equality and fraternity ; questions 
relative to luxury, wages, machinery ; to the pre- 
tended tyranny of capital; to coloniss, outlets, pop- 
ulation; to emigration, association, imposts, and 
loans, have encumbered the field of Science with a 
crowd of parasitical arguments,—Sophisms, whose 
rank growth calls for the spade and the weeding- 
hoe. | 

I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, 
or rather absence of plan. By attacking a#I do, 
one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, whick 
clash, and then again often mingle with each other, 
Iam conscious that I condemn myself to a disor- 
derly and capricious struggle, and am exposed t 
perpetual repetitions. 


156 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I should certainly much prefer to state simply 
how things are, without troubling myself to con- 
template the thousand aspects under which igno- 
rance supposes them to be.... To lay down at 
once the laws under which society prospers or per- 
ishes, would be virtually to destroy at once all 
‘Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to 
his time, was known of the movements of celestial 
bodies, he dissipated, without even naming them, 
all the astrological reveries of the LHgyptians, 
Greeks, and Hindoos, much more certainly than he 
could have done by attempting to refute them 
directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is 
one, and the work which expounds it is an impos- 
ing and durable edifice. Error is multiple, and of 
ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, 
cannot bear in itself a principle of greatness or of 
durability. 

But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have 
been wanting to me, to enable me to proceed in the 
manner of-Laplace and of Say, I still cannot but 
believe that the mode adopted by me has also its 
modest usefulness. It appears to me likewise to 
be well suited to the wants of the age, and to the 
broken moments which it is now the habit te 
snatch for study. | 

A. treatise has without doubt an incontestable 
superiority. But it requires to be read, meditated, 
and understood. It addresses itself to the select 


s 


CONCLUSION. 157 


few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then 
to enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge. 

A. work which undertakes the refutation of vul- 
gar prejudices, cannot have so high anaim. It 
aspires only to clear the way for the steps of Truth; 
to prepare the minds of men to receive her ; to rec- 
tify public opinion, and to snatch from unworthy 
hands dangerous weapons which they misuse. 

It is above all, in social economy, that this hand- 
to-hand struggle, this ever-reviving combat with 
popular errors, has a true practical utility. 

Sciences might be arranged in two categories. 
Those of the first class whose application belongs 
only to particular professions, can be understood only 
by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit 
by their fruits) We may enjoy the comforts of a 
watch ; we may be transported by locomotives or 
steamboats, although knowing nothing of mechan- 
ism and astronomy. We walk according to the 
laws of equilibrium, while entirely ignorant of 
them. 

But there are sciences whose influence upon the 
‘public is proportioned ‘only to the information of 
that public itself, and whose efficacy consists not in 
the accumulated knowledge of some few learned: 
heads, but in that which has diffused itself into the 
reason of man in the aggregate. Such are morals, 
hygiene, social economy, and (in countries where 
men belong to themselves) political econcmy. Of 


158 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


these sciences Bentham might above all have said : 
“Tt is better to circulate, than to advance them.” 
What does it profit us that a great man, evena 
God, should promulgate moral laws, if the minds 
of men, steeped in error, will constantly mistake 
vice for virtue, and virtue for vice? What does it 
benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. 
de St. Chamans, political economists of every school, 
should have proclaimed the superiority in all com- 
mercial transactions, of liberty above restraint, if 
those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, 
are convinced of the contrary? 

These sciences, which have very properly been 
named soczal, are again peculiar in this, that they, 
being of common application, no one will confess 
himself ignorant of them. If the object be to 
determine a question in chemistry or geometry, 
nobody pretends to have an innate knowledge of 
the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thénard, 
or toseek information from the pages of Legendre 
or Bezout. But in the social sciences authorities 
are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily 
acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, 
of morals, hygiene, and economy; of politics, 
whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks he 
has a right to prose, comment, decide, and dictate 
in these matters. Are yousiek? “kore is nota 
good old woman in the country who : not ready 
to tell you the cause and the remedy» ~aur suf: 


CONCLUSION. 159 


ferings. “It is from humors in the blood,” says 
she, “you must be purged.” But what are these 
humors, or are there any humors at all? On this sub- 
ject she troubles herself but little. This good old 
woman comes into my mind, whenever I hear an 
attempt made to account for all the maladies of the 
social body, by some trivial form of words. It is 
superabundance of produce, tyranny of capital, 
industrial plethora, or other such nonsense, of which, 
it would be fortunate if we could say: Verba et 
voces preetereaque nihil, for these are errors from 
which fatal consequences follow. 

From what precedes, the two following results 
may be deduced: Ist.. That the social sciences, 
more than others, necessarily abound in Sophisms, 
because in their application, each individual con- 
sults only his own judgment and his own instincts. 
2d. That in these sciences Sophisms are especially 
injurious, because they mislead opinion on a sub- 
ject in which opinion is power—is law. 

Two kinds of books then are necessary in these 
sciences, those which teach, and those which circu- 
late; those which expound the truth, and those 
which combat error. 

T believe that the inherent defect of this little: 
work, repetition, 1s what is likely to be the cause of 
its principal utility. Among the Sophisms which 
it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own for- 
mula and tendency, but all have a common root; 


160 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


and this is, the forgetfulness of the interests af men, 
considered as consumers. By showing that a thou- 
sand mistaken roads all lead to this great generative 
Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recog- 
- nize, to know, and to mistrust it, under all circum- 
stances. ; 

_ After all, Iam less at forcing convictions, than 
at waking doubts, 

I have no hope that the reader as he lays down 
my book. will exclaim, J know. My aspirations 
will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely say, 
I doubt. 

“T doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be 
something illusory in the supposed blessings of 
scarcity.” (Sophism I) 

“Tam not so certain of the beneficial effect of. 
obstacles.” (Sophism IL.) 

“ Effort without result, no longer appears to me so 
desirable as result without effort.” (Sophism IIL.) 

“T understand that the more an article has been 
labored upon, the more is its value. But in trade, 
do two equal values cease to be equal, because. one 
comes from the plough, and the other from. the 
workshop?” (Sophism XXII.) _ | . 

“T confess that I. begin to think it singular that 
mankind should be the better of hindrances and ~ 
obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; and 
truly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would 
be really happy to see the proof of the fact, ag 


CONCLUSION. | 161 


stated by the author of “the Sophisms,” that there 
is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, 
between peace and liberty, between the extension 
of labor and the advance of intelligence.” _ (Soph- 
isms XIV and XX.) 

“ Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, 
which I am yet in doubt whether to look upon as 
fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at’ least 
seek enlightenment from the masters of the science.” 


IT will now terminate this sketch by a last and 
important recapitulation, 

The world is not sufficiently conscious of the - 
influence exercised over it by Sophistry. 

When might ceases to be right, and the government 
of mere strength is dethroned, Sophistry transfers the 
empire to cunning and subtity. It would be diffi- 
cult to determine which of the two tyrannies is 
most injurious to mankind. 

Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, 
influence, consideration, power—in a word, for 
riches; and they are, by an almost unconquerable 
inclination, pushed to pega these, at the expense 
of others. 

But these others, who pi fs public, have a no 
less strong inclination to keep what they have 
acquired ; and this they will do, if they have the 
strength and the knowledge to effect it. 

Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the 

14 ) 


162 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


affairs of this world, has then two agents; Force 
and Cunning. She has also two checks; Courage 
and Knowledge. 

Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great 
material for the annals of men. . To retrace its his- 
tory would be to present almost the entire history 
of every nation: Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, 
Persians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, 
Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without counting the more 
recent expeditions of the English in India, the 
French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, ete., ete. 

But among civilized nations surely the producers 
of riches are now become sufficiently numerous and 
strong to defend themselves. 

Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? 
They are as much so. as ever, and moreover they 
rob one another. 

The only difference is that Spoliation has changed 
her agent. She acts no longer by Force, but by 
Cunning. | 

To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. 
To deceive them, it is necessary to persuade them 
that they are robbed for their own advantage, and 
to induce them to accept in exchange for their 
property, imaginary services, and often worse. 
Hence spring Sophisms in all their varieties. Then, 
since Force is held in check, Sophistry is no longer 
only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a 
check in its turn. This check must be the enlight- 


CONCLUSION. 163 


enment of the public, which must be rendered more 
subile than the subtle, as itis already stronger than | 
the strong. 


Goop Pustic! I now dedicate to you this first 
essay ; though it must be confessed that the Preface 
is strangely transposed, and the Dedication a little 
tardy. 


i ees: Hei eee 

ie J “i rae we 4 7 Be ig 
fe aes Pret et 
1 tk die ‘ 


a 


ey er ‘st ee ae 


Tes 1:0' ee OO : S Lone, Bea 
. vs + " = ’ X ws - . DeLay ~— Fe 
a . a ngd teat bumauiane ak Ere ay ghee 
5 3} re: 0. xibek day ae ‘LO ERE nage 
$ ) >~ m4 ae at ig fibre e) ae ¥ i 734 = saa 
Bie me) rte ‘ Rie a RenAn 
| PS ae a Ree LT on ‘ Me Tea 


CEE ere TS 
es ee pa 2 a: ee 


Se Rae ei \ ts ear bet 


Nn 


4,  ¢ 
i —. oe as Aa ‘ . 
A ie EE Tae ie ee ene Ah ‘ 


7 Fo" 
) PP eee te 

a2 - a 

¢ 


’ 


Sap iol gl Bal QU Bs 


face eee 


SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


SECOND SERIES. 
—— 


“The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that of 
Diogenes to Alexander: “Stand out of my sunshine.”—BENTHAM, 


L 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 


Wuy do I give myself up to that dry science, 
political economy ? | 

The question isa proper one. All labor is so 
repugnant in its nature that one has the right to ask 
of what use it is. 

Let us examine and see. 

I do not address myself to those philosophers 
who, if not in their own names, at least in the name 


of humanity, profess to adore poverty. 
(165) 


166 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I speak to those who hold wealth in esteem—and 
understand by this word, not the opulence of the 
few, but the comfort, the well-being, the security, 
the independence, the instruction, the dignity of all. 

There are only two ways by which the means 
essential to the preservation, the adornment and the 
perfection of life may be obtained—production and 
spoliation. Some persons may say: “Spoliation is 
an accident, a local and transient abuse, denounced 
by morality, punished by the law, and unworthy 
the attention of political economy.” 

Still, however benevolent or optimistic one may 
be, he is compelled to admit that spoliation is prac- 

ticed on so vast a scale in this world, and is so gen- 
~ erally connected with all great human events, that 
no social science, and, least of all, political economy, 
can refuse to consider it. 

I go farther. That which prevents the perfection 
of the social system (at least in so far as it 1s capa- 
ble of perfection) is the constant effort of its mem- 
bers to live and prosper at the expense of each 
other. So that, if spoliation did not exist, society 
being perfect, the social sciences would be without 
an object. 

I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a 
means of subsistence for a body of men united by 
social ties, in course of time they make a law which 
sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it. 

It is enough to name some of the best defined 


= 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 167 


forms of spoliation to indicate the position it occu- 
pies in human affairs. 

First comes war. Among savages the conqueror 
kills the conquered, to obtain an uncontested, if not 
incontestable, right to game. 

Next slavery. When man learns that he can 
make the earth fruitful by labor, he makes this 
division with his brother: “ You work and I eat.” 

Then comes superstition. ‘According as you give 
or refuse me that which is yours, I will open to you 
the gates of heaven or of hell.” 

Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing 
characteristic is to allow the existence of the grand 
social law—service for service—while it brings the 
element of force into the discussion, and thus alters 
the just proportion between service received and 
service rendered. 

Spoliation always bears within itself the germ of 
its own destruction. Very rarely the many despoil 
the few. In such a case the latter soon become so 
reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupidity 
of the former, and’ spoliation ceases for want of 
sustenance. 

Almost always the few oppress the many, and in 
that case spoliation is none the less undermined, 
for, if it has force as an agent, as in war and 
slavery, it is natural that force in the end should be 
on the side of the greater number. And if decep- 
tion is the agent, as with superstition and monopoly, 


168 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


it is natural that the many should ultimately 
become enlightened. 

Another law of Providence wars agairst spolia- 
tion. It is this: 

Spoliation not only displaces wealth, but always 
destroys a portion. 

War annihilates values. 

Slavery paralyzes the faculties. 

‘Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to 
another, but it always occasions the loss of a portion 
in the transfer. | ; 

This is an admirable law. Without it, provided 
the strength of oppressors and oppressed were 
equal, spoliation would have no end. 

A. moment comes when the destruction of wealth 
is such that the despoiler is poorer than he would 
have been if he had remained honest. 

So it is with a people when a war costs more than 
the booty is worth; with a master who pays more 
for slave labor than for free labor; with a priesthood 
which has so stupefied the people and destroyed its 
energy that nothing more can be gotten out of it; 
with a monopoly which increases its attempts at 
absorption as there is less to absorb, just as the dif_i- 
culty of milking increases with the emptiness of , 
the udder. 

Monopoly isa species of the genus spoliation. 
It has many varieties, among them sinecure, privi- 
lege, and restriction upon trade. 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 169 


Some of the forms it assumes are simple and 
naive, like feudal rights. Under this regime the 
masses are despoiled, and know it. 

Other forms are more complicated. Often the 
masses are plundered, and do not know it. It may 
even happen that they believe that they owe every 
thing to spohation, not only what is left them but 
what is taken from them, and what is lost in the 
operation. I also assert that, in the course of time, 
thanks.to the ingenious machinery of habit, many 
people become spoilers without knowing it or wish- 
ing it. Monopolies of this kind are begotten by 
fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish only 
before the light. 

I have said enough to indicate that political 
economy has a manifest practical use. It is the 
torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipating error, 
destroys that social disorder called spoliation. 
Some one, a woman I believe, has correctly defined 
it as ‘the safety-lock upon the property of the 
people.” 

) COMMENTARY. 

If this little book were destined to live three or 
four thousand years, to be read and re-read, pondered 
and studied, phrase by phrase, word by word, and 
letter by letter, from generation to generation, like 
a new Koran; if it were to fill the libraries of the 
world with avalanches of annotations, explanations 


and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, in their 
16 


170 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION, 


rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which pre- 
cede. But since they need a commentary, it seems 
' wise to me to furnish it myself. 

The true and equitable law of humanity is the 
Sree exchange of service for service. Spoliation con- 
sists in destroying by force or by trickery the free- 
dom of exchange, in order to receive a service 
without rendering one. 

Forcible spoliation is exercised thus: Wait till a 
man has produced something; then take it from 
him by violence. 

It is solemnly condemned by the Decalogue: 
Thou shalt not steal. 

When practiced by one individual on another, it 
is called robbery, and leads to the prison; when 
practiced among nations, it takes the name of con- 
quest, and leads to glory. 

Why this difference? It is worth while to search 
for the cause. It will reveal to us an irresistible 
power, public opinion, which, like the atmosphere, 
envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. 
Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: “A 
great deal of philosophy is needed to understand 
the facts which are very near to us.” 

The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, 
has public opinion against him. He terrifies all 
who are about him. Yet, if he has companions, he 
plumes himself before them on his exploits, and 
here we may begin to notice the power of public 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. LEE 


opinion, for the approbation of his band serves to 
obliterate all consciousness of his turpitude, and 
even to make him proud of it. The warrior lives 
in a different atmosphere. ‘The public opinion 
which would rebuke him is among the vanquished. 
He does not feel its influence. But the opinion of 
those by whom he is surrounded approves his acts 
and sustains him. He and his comrades are vividly 
conscious of the common interest which unites them. 
The country which has created enemies and dan- 
gers, needs to stimulate the courage of its children. 
To the most daring, to those who have enlarged the 
frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are given 
honors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. 
Fair women weave garlands for them. And such 
is the power of public opinion that it separates the 
idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids the 
despoiler of the consciousness of his wrong-doing. 
The public opinion which reacts against military 
spoliation, (as it exists among the conquered and 
not among the conquering people), has very little 
influence. But it is not entirely powerless. It 
gains in strength as nations come together and 
understand one another better. Thus, it can be seen 
that the study of languages and the free communi- 
cation of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy 
of an opinion opposed to this sort of spoliation. 
Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations 
adjacent to a plundering people are themselves 


tee SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


spoilers when opportunity. offers, and hence are im- 
bued with the same prejudices. 

Then there is only one remedy—time. It is 
necessary that nations learn. by harsh experience 
the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other. 

You say there is another restraint—moral influ- 
ences. But moral influences have for their object 
the increase of virtuous actions. How can they 
restrain these acts of spoliation when these very acts 
are raised by public opinion to the level of the high- 
est virtues? Is there a more potent moral influence 
than religion? Has there ever been a religion more 
favorable to peace or more’ universally received 
than Christianity? And yet what has been wit- 
nessed during eighteen centuries? Men have gone 
out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in 
the very name of religion. 

A conquering nation does not always wage offen- 
sive war. Its soldiers are obliged to protect the 
hearthstones, the property, the families, the indepen- 
dence and liberty of their native land. At sucha 
time war assumes a character of sanctity and gran- 
deur. The flag, blessed by the ministers of the God | 
of Peace, represents all that is sacred on earth; the 
people rally to it as the living image of their coun- 
try and their honor; the warlike virtues are exalted 
above all others. When the danger is over, the 
opinion remains, and by a natural reaction of that 
spirit of vengeance which confounds itself with 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 173 


patriotism, they love to bear the cherished flag from 
capital to capital. It seems that nature has thus 
prepared the punishment of the aggressor. 

It is the fear of this punishment, and not the pro- 
gress of philosophy, which keeps arms in the arsen- 
als, for it cannot be denied that those people who 
are most advanced in civilization make war, and 
bother themselves very little with justice when they 
have no reprisals to fear. Witness the Himalayas, 
the Atlas, and the Caucasus. 

If religion has been impotent, if philosophy is 
powerless, how is war to cease ? 

Political economy demonstrates that even if the 
victors alone are considered, war is always begun in 
the interest of the few, and at the expense of the 
many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses 
should clearly perceive this truth. The weight of 
public opinion, which is yet divided, would then 
be cast entirely on the side of peace. 

Forcible spoliation also takes another form. With- 
out waiting for a-man to produce something in 
order to rob him, they take possession of the man 
himself, deprive him of his freedom, and force him 
to work. ‘They do not say to him, “If you will do 
this for me, I will do that for you,” but they say to 
him, ‘You take all the troubles; we all the enjoy- 
ments.” ‘This is slavery. 

Now it is important to inquire whether it is not in 
the nature of uncontrolled power always to abuse 
itself. 


174 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as 
soon expect to see the power that could arrest a 
stone in falling proceed from the stone itself, as to 
trust force within any defined limits. 

I should like to be shown a country where slavery 
has been abolished by the voluntary action of the 
masters. 

Slavery furnishes a second striking example of 
the impotence of philosophical and religious senti- 
ments in a conflict with the energetic activity of 
self-interest. 

This may seem sad to some modern schools which 
seek the reformation of society in self-denial. Let 
them begin by reforming the nature of man. 

In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, 
have, since slavery was established, professed the 
Christian religion. Many times a day they repeat 
these words: “All men are brothers. Love thy 
neighbor as thyself; in this are the law and the 
prophets fulfilled.” Yet they hold slaves, and noth- 
ing seems to them more legitimate or natural. Do — 
modern reformers hope that their moral creed will 
ever be as universally accepted, as popular, as 
authoritative, or as often on all lips as the Gospel? 
If that kas not passed from the lips to the heart, over 
or through the great barrier of self-interest, how can 
they hope that their system will work this miracle ? 

Well, then, is slavery invulnerable? No; self- 
interest, which founded it, will one day destroy it, 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 175 


provided the special interests which have created it © 
do not stifle those general interests which tend to 
overthrow it. 

Another truth demonstrated by political economy 
is, that free labor is progressive, and slave labor sta- 
tionary. Hence the triumph of the first over the 
second is inevitable. What has become of the cul- 
tivation of indigo by the blacks ? 

Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is 
constantly causing a reduction in the price. Slave 
property is becoming proportionately less valuable - 
to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America 
unless the price of sugar is artificially raised by legis- 
lation. Accordingly we see to-day the masters, their 
creditors and representatives, making vigorous 
efforts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars 
of the edifice. 

Unfortunately they still have the = of 
people among whom slavery has disappeared, from 
which circumstance the sovereignty of public opin- 
10n may again be observed. If public opinion is 
sovereign in the domain of force, it is much more 
so in the domain of fraud. Fraud is its proper 
sphere. Stratagem is the abuse of intelligence. 
Imposture on the part of the despoiler implies cre- 
dulity on the part of the despoiled, and the natural 
antidote of credulity is truth. It follows that to 
enlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spo- 
lhation of its support. 


176 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I will briefly pass in review a few of the different 
kinds of spoliation’ which are practiced on an 
exceedingly large scale. The first which presents 
itself is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. 
In what does it consist? In the exchange of food, 
clothing, luxury, distinction, influence, power—sub- 
_ stantial services for fictitious services. If I tella 
man: “JT will render you an immediate service,” I 
am obliged to keep my word, or he would soon 
know what to depend upon, and my trickery would 
be unmasked. 

But if I should tell him, “ In exchange for your. 
services I will do you immense service, not in 
this world. but in another; after this life you may 
be eternally happy or miserable, and that happiness 
or misery depends upon me; I am a vicar between 
God and man, and can open to you the gates of 
heaven or of hell;” if that man believes me he is 
at my mercy. 

This method of imposture has been very exten- 
sively practiced since the beginning of the world, and 
it is well known to what omnipotence the Egyptian 
priests attained by such means. 

It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is 
enough to ask one’s self what he would do in their 
place. ; 

If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrived 
in the midst of an ignorant population, and were to 
succeed by some extraordinary act or marvelous 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 177 


appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural 
being, I would claim to be a messenger from God, 
having an absolute control over the future destinies 
of men. 

Then I would forbid all examination of my 
claims. I would go still further, and, as reason 
would be my most dangerous enemy, I would inter- 
dict the use of reason—at least as applied to this 
dangerous subject. I would tavoo, as the savages 
say, this question, and all those connected with it. 
To agitate them, discuss them, or even think of 
them, should be an unpardonable crime. 

Certainly it would be the acme of art thus to put 
the barrier of the taboo upon all intellectual avenues. 
which might lead to the discovery of my imposture. 
What better guarantee of its perpetuity than to — 
make even doubt sacrilege ? 

However, I would add accessory guarantees to this 
fundamental one. For instance, in order that knowl- 
edge might never be disseminated among the masses, 
I would appropriate to myself and. my accom- 
plices the monopoly of the sciences. I would hide 
them under the veil of a dead language and _hiero- 
elyphic writing; and, in order that no danger might 
take me unawares, I would be careful to invent 
some ceremony which day by day would give me 
access to the privacy of all consciences. 

It would not be amiss for me to supply some of 
the real wants of my people, especially if by doing 

Lt 


178 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


so I could add to my influence and authority. For 
instance, men need education and moral teaching, 
and I would be the source of both. Thus I would 
guide as I pleased the minds and hearts of my 
people. I would join morality to my authority by an 
indissoluble chain, and I would proclaim that one 
could not exist without the other, so that if any 
audacious individual attempted to meddle with a — 
tabooed question, society, which cannot exist without 
morality, would feel the very earth tremble under 
its feet, and would turn its wrath upon the rash 
innovator. 

When things have come to this pass, it is plain 
that these people are more mine than if they were 
my slaves. The slave curses his chain, but my 
people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in 
stamping, not on their foreheads, but in the very 
centre of their consciences, the seal of slavery. 

Public opinion alone can overturn such a struc- 
ture of iniquity; but where can it begin, if each 
stone 1s taboged? Itis the work of time and the 
printing press. 

God forbid that I should seek to disturb those 
consoling beliefs which link this life of sorrows to 
a life of felicity. But, that the irresistible longing 
which attracts us toward religion has been abused, 
no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. 
There is, it seems to me, one sign by which you can 
know whether the people are or are not dupes. 


4 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 179 


Examine religion and the priest, and see whether 
the priest is the instrument of religion, or religion 
the instrument of the priest. 

If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his 
only thought is to disseminate its morality and its 
benefits on the earth, he will be gentle, tolerant, 
humble, charitable, and. full of zeal; his life wiil 
reflect that of his divine model; he will preach 
liberty and equality among men, and peace and fra- 
ternity among nations; he will repel the allurements 
of temporal power, and will not ally himself with 
that which, of all things in this world, has the most 
need of restraint; he will be the man of the people, 
the man of good advice and tender consolations, the 
man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist. 

If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument 
of the priest, he will treat it as one does an instru- 
ment which is changed, bent and twisted in all ways 
so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage 
for one’s self. He will multiply tabooed questions; 
his morality will be as flexible as seasons, men, and 
circumstances. He will seek to impose on humanity 
by gesticulations and studied attitudes; an hundred 
times a day he will mumble over words whose sense 
has evaporated and which havé become empty con- 
ventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but 
just enough not to shake faith in their sanctity, 
and he will take care that the more intelligent the 
people are, the less open shall the traffic be. He 


| 


180 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


will take part in the intrigues of the world, and he 
will always side with the powerful, on the simple 
condition that they side with him. In a word, it 
will be easy to see in all his actions that he does 
not desire to advance religion by the clergy, but the 
clergy by religion, and as so many efforts indicate 
an object, and as this object, according to the 
hypothesis, can be only power and wealth, the 
decisive proof that the people are dupes is when the 
priest is rich and powerful. 

It is very plain that a true religion can be abused 
as well asa false one. The higher its authority 
the greater the fear that it may be severely tested. 
But there is much difference in the results. Abuse 
always stirs up to revolt the sound, enlightened, 
intelligent portion of a people. This inevitably 
weakens faith, and the weakening of a true religion 
is far more lamentable than of a false one. This 
kind of spoliation, and popular enlightenment, are 
always in an inverse ratio to one another, for it is 
in the nature of abuses to go as far as possible. 
Not that pure and devoted priests cannot be found 
in the midst of the most ignorant population, but 
how can the knave be prevented from donning the 
eassock and nursing the ambitious hope of wearing 
the mitre? Despoilers obey the Malthusian law; 
they multiply with the means of existence, and 
the means of existence of knaves 1s the credulity 
of their dupes. ‘Turn whichever way you please, 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 181 


you always find the need of an-enlightened pub- 
lic opinion. ‘There is no other cure-all. 

Another species of spoliation is commercial fraud, 
a term which seems to me too limited because the 
tradesman who changes his weights and measures 
is not alone culpable, but also the physician who 
receives a fee for evil counsel, the lawyer who 
provokes litigation, etc... In the exchange of two 
services one may be of less value than the other, 
but when the service received is that which has 
been agreed upon, it is evident that spoliation of 
that nature will diminish with the increase of pub- 
lic intelligence. 

The next in order is the abuse in the public ser- 
vice—an immense field of spoliation, so immense 
that we can give it but partial consideration. 

If God had made man a solitary animal, every one 
would labor for himself. Individual wealth would 
be in proportion to the services each one rendered 
to himself. But since man ts a social animal, one 
service ys exchanged for another. A. proposition 
which you can transpose if it suits you. 

In society there are certain requirements so gen- 
eral, so universal in their nature, that provision has 
been made for them in the organizing of the public 
service. Among these is the necessity of secu- 
rity. Society agrees to compensate in services 
of a, different nature those who render it the service 
of guarding the public safety. In this there is 


182 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


nothing contrary to the principles of political 
economy. Do this for me, L will do that for you. 
The principle of the transaction is the same, 
although the process is different, but the circum- 
stance has great significance. | 

In private transactions each individual remains 
the judge both of the service which he renders 
and of that which he receives.) He can always 
decline an exchange, or negotiate elsewhere. There 
1s no necessity of an interchange of services, ex- 
cept by previous voluntary agreement. Such is 
not the case with the State, especially before 
the establishment of representative government. 
Whether or not we require its services, whether 
they are good or bad, we are obliged to accept such 
as are offered and to pay the price. 

It is the tendency of all men to magnify their 
own services and to disparage services rendered 
them, and private matters would be poorly reg- 
ulated if there was not some standard of value. 
This guarantee we have not, (or we hardly have it,) 
in public affairs. But still society, composed of 
men, however strongly the contrary may be insin- 
uated, obeys the universal tendency. The govern- 
ment wishes to serve us a great deal, much more 
than we desire, and forces us to acknowledge as a 
real service that which sometimes is widely differ- 
ent, and thisis done for the purpose of demanding 
contributions from us in return. 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 183 


The State is also subject to the law of Malthus. 
It is continually living beyond its means, it increases 
in proportion to its means, and draws its support 
solely from the substance of the people. Woe to 
the people who are incapable of limiting the sphere 
of action of the State. Liberty, private activity, 
riches, well-being, independence, dignity, depend 
upon this. | 

There is one circumstance which must be ncticed : 
Chief among the services which we ask of the 
State is securzty. That it may guarantee this to us 
it must control a force capable of overcoming all 
individual or collective domestic or foreign forces 
which might endanger it. Combined with that 
fatal disposition among men to live at the expense 
of each other, which we have before noticed, this 
fact suggests a danger patent to all. 

You will accordingly observe on’ what an im- 
mense scale spoliation, by the abuses and excesses 
of the government, has been practiced. 

If one should ask what service has been rendered 
the public, and what return has been made therefor, 
by such governments as -Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, 
Rome, Persia, Turkey, China, Russia, England, 
Spain and France, he would be astonished at the 
enormous disparity. 

At last representative government was invented, 
and, a priori, one might have believed that the dis- 
order would have ceased as if by enchantment. 


184 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


The principle of these governments is this: 

“The people themselves, by their representatives, 
shall decide as to the nature and extent of the pub- 
lic service and the remuneration for those services.” 

I'he tendency to appropriate the property of 
another, and the desire to defend one’s own, are 
thus brought in contact. One might suppose that 
the latter would overcome the former. Assuredly 
Iam convinced that the latter will finally prevail, 
but we must concede that thus far it has not. 

Why? Fora very simple reason. Governments 
have had too much sagacity ; people too little. 

Governments are skillful. They act methodi- 
cally, consecutively, on a well concerted plan, 
which is constantly improved by tradition and ex- 
perience. They study men and their passions. If 
they perceive, for instance, that they have warlike 
instincts, they incite and inflame this fatal propen- 
sity. They surround the nation with dangers 
through the conduct of diplomats, and then natu- 
rally ask for soldiers, sailors, arsenals and fortifica- 
tions. Often they have but the trouble of accept- 
ing them. Then they have pensions, places, and 
promotions to offer. All this calls for money. 
Hence loans and taxes. 

If the nation is generous, the government pro- 
poses to cure all the ills of humanity. It promises 
to increase commerce, to make agriculture pros- 
perous, to develop manufactures, to encourage 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 185 


letters and arts, to banish misery, etc. All that is 
necessary is to create offices and to pay public func- 
tionaries. 

In other words, their tactics consist in presenting 
as actual services things which are but hindrances ; 
then the nation pays, not for being served, but for 
being subservient. Governments assuming gigan- 
tic proportions end by absorbing half of all the 
revenues. The people are astonished that while 
marvelous labor-saving inventions, destined to 
infinitely multiply productions, are ever increasing 
in number, they are obliged to toil on as painfully 
as ever, and remain as poor as before. ‘ 

This happens because, while the government 
manifests so much ability, the people show so little. 
Thus, when they are called upon to choose their 
agents, those who are to determine the sphere of, 
and compensation for, governmental action, whom 
do they choose? The agents of the government. 
They entrust the. executive power with the deter- 
mination of the limit of its activity and its require- 
ments, They are like the Bourgeois Gentilhomme, 
who referred the selection and number of his suits _ 
of clothes to his tailor. — 

However, things go from bad to worse, and at 
last the people open their eyes, not to the remedy, 
for there is none as yet, but to the evil. 

Governing is so pleasant a trade that everybody 


desires to engage in it. Thus the advisers of the 
16 


186 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


people do not cease to say: “ We see your sulfer- 
ings, and we weep over them. It would be other- 
wise if we governed you.” 

This period, which usually lasts for some time, 
is one of rebellions and insurrections. When the 
people are conquered, the expenses of the war are 
added to their burdens. When they conquer, there 
isa change of those who govern, and the abuses 
remain. 

This lasts until the people learn to know and 
defend their true interests. Thus we always come 
back to this: there is no remedy but in the progress 
of public intelligence. 

Certain nations seem remarkably inclined to 
become the prey of governmental spoliation. They 
are those where men, not considering their own 
dignity and energy, would believe themselves lost, 
if they were not governed and administered upon 
in all things) Without having traveled much, I 
have seen countries where they think agriculture 
can make no progress unless the State keeps up 
experimental farms; that there will presently be no 
horses if the State has no stables; and that fathers 
will not have their children educated, or will teach 
them only immoralities, if the State does not decide 
what it is proper to learn. In sucha country revolu- 
tions may rapidly succeed one another, and one set 
of rulers after another be overturned. But the gov- 
erned are none the less governed at the caprice and 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 187 


mercy of their rulers, until the people see that it is 
better to leave the greatest possible number of ser- 
vices in the category of those which the parties 
interested exchange after a fair discussion of the 
price. 

. We have seen that society is an exchange of ser- 
vices, and should be but an exchange of good and 
honest ones. But we have also proven that men 
have a great interest in exaggerating the relative 
value of the services they render one another. I 
cannot, indeed, see any other limit to these claims 
than the free acceptance or free refusal of those.to 
whom these services are offered. 

Hence it comes that certain men resort to the law 
to curtail the natural prerogatives of this liberty. 
This kind of spoliation is called privilege or mon- 
opoly. We will carefully indicate its origin and 
character. 

Every one knows that the services which he offers 
in the general market are the more valued and bet- 
ter paid for, the scarcer they are. Hach one, then, 
will ask for the enactment of a law to keep out of 
the market all who offer services similar to his. 

This variety of spoliation being the chief subject 
of this volume, I will say little of it here, and will 
restrict myself to one remark : 

When the monopoly is an isolated fact, it never 
fails to enrich the person to whom the law has 
granted it. It may then happen that each class of 


188 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


workmen, instead of seeking the overthrow of this 
monopoly, claim a similar one for themselves. This 
kind of spoliation, thus reduced to a system, 
becomes then the most ridiculous of mystifications 
for every one, and the definite result is that each 
one believes that he gains more from a general mar- 
ket impoverished by all. 

It is not necessary to add that this singular regime 
also brings about an universal antagonism between 
all classes, all professions, and all peoples; that it 

requires the constant but always uncertain inter- 
ference of government; that it swarms with the 
abuses which have been the subject of the preced- 
ing paragraph ; that it places all industrial pursuits 
in hopeless insecurity ; and that it accustoms men 
to place upon the law, and not upon themselves, 
the responsibility for their very existence. It would 
be difficult to imagine a more active cause of social 
disturbance. 


JUSTIFICATION. 


It may be asked, ““ Why this ugly word—spolia- 
tion? It is not only coarse, but it wounds and irri- 
tates; it turns calm and moderate men against you, 
and embitters the controversy.” 

I earnestly declare that I respect individuals; I 
believe in the sincerity of almost all the friends of 
Protection, and I do not claim that I have any 
right to suspect the personal honesty, delicacy of 


NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 189 


feeling, or philanthropy of any one. JI also repeat 
that Protection is the work, the fatal work, of a 
common error, of which all, or nearly all, are at 
once victims and accomplices. But I cannot pre- 
vent things being what they are. 

Just imagine some Diogenes putting his head out 
of his tub and saying, “ Athenians, you are served 
by slaves. Have you never thought that you 
practice on your brothers the most iniquitous spo- 
hation?” Or a tribune speaking in the forum, 
‘Romans! you have laid the foundation of all youx 
greatness on the pillage of other nations.” 

They would state only undeniable truths. But 
must we conclude from this that Athens and Rome 
were inhabited only by dishonest persons? that 
Socrates and Plato, Cato and Cincinnatus were des- 
picable characters ? 

Who could harbor such a thought? But these 
great men lived amidst surroundings that relieved 
their consciences of the sense of this injustice. 
Even Aristotle could not conceive the idea of a 
society existing without slavery. In modern times 
slavery has continued to our own day without 
causing many scruples among the planters. Armies 
have served as the instruments of grand conquests 
—that is to say, of grand spoliations. Is this say- 
ing that they are not composed of officers and men 
as sensitive of their honor, even more so, perhaps, 
than men in ordinary industrial pursuits—men who 


190 SOPHISMS: OF PROTECTION. 


would blush at the very thought of theft, and who 
would face a thousand deaths rather than stoop 
to a base action ? 

It is not individuals who are to blame, but the 
general movement of opinion which deludes and 
deceives them—a movement for which society in 
general is culpable. 

Thus is it with monopoly. I accuse the system, 
and not individuals; society asa mass, and not this 
or that one of its members. If the greatest phil- 
osophers have been able to deceive themselves as 
to the iniquity of slavery, how much easier is it 
for farmers and manufacturers to deceive themselves 
as to the nature and effects of the protective system. 


LL. 
TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 


ARRIVED at the end of the preceding chapter, if 
he gets so far, [imagine I hear the reader say : 

“Well, now, was I wrong in accusing political 
economists of being dry and cold? What a pic- 
ture of humanity! Spoliation is a fatal power, 
almost normal,. assuming every form, practiced 
under every pretext, against law and according to 
law, abusing the most sacred things, alternately 


TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 191 


playing upon the feebleness and the credulity of the 
masses, and ever growing by what it feeds on. 
Could a more mournful picture of the world be 
imagined than this?” 

The problem is, not to find whether the picture 
is mournful, but whether it is true. And for that 
we have the testimony of history. 

It is singular that those who decry political econ- 
omy, because it investigates men and the world as 
it finds them, are more gloomy than _ political 
economy itself, at least as regards the past and the 
present. Look into their books and their journals. 
What do youfind? Bitterness and hatred of society. 
The very word civilization is for them a synonym 
for injustice, disorder and anarchy. They have 
even come to curse liberty, so little confidence have 
they in the development of the human race, the 
result of its natural organization. Liberty, ac- 
cording to them, is something which will bring 
humanity nearer and nearer to destruction. 

It is true that they are optimists as regards the 
future. For, although humanity, in itself incapable, 
for six thousand years has gone astray, a revelation 
has come, which has pointed out to men the way of 
safety, anid; if the flock are docile and obedient to 
the shepherd s call, will lead them to the promised 
Jand, where well-being may be attained without 
effort, where order, security and prosperity are the 
easy reward of improvidence. 


192 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


To this end humanity, as Rousseau said, has only 
to allow these reformers to change the physical and 
moral constitution of man. 

Political economy has not taken upon itself the 
mission of finding out the probable condition of 
society had it pleased God to make men different 
from what they are. It may be unfortunate that 
Providence, at the beginning, neglected to call to 
his counsels a few of our modern reformers. And, 
as the celestial mechanism would have been entirely 
different had the Creator consulted Alphonso the 
Wise, society, also, had He not neglected the advice 
of Fourier, would have been very different from 
that in which we are compelled to live, and move, 
and breathe. But, since we are here, our duty is to 
study and to understand His laws, especially if the 
amelioration of our condition essentially depends 
upon such knowledge. 

We cannot prevent the existence of unsatisfied 
desires in the hearts of men. 

We cannot satisfy these desires except by labor. 

We cannot deny the fact that man has as much 
repugnance for labor as he has satisfaction with its 

results. 

Since man has such characteristics, we cannot 
prevent the existence of a constant tendency among 
men to obtain their part of the enjoyments of life 
while throwing upon others, by force or by trickery, 
the burdens of labor. It is not for us to belie uni- 


TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 193 


versal history, to silence the voice of the past, 
which attests that this has been the condition of 
things since the beginning of the world. We can- 
not deny that war, slavery, superstition, the abuses 
of government, privileges, frauds of every nature, 
and monopolies, have been the incontestable and ter- 
rible manifestations of these two sentiments united 
in the heart of man: desire for enjoyment; repug- 
nance to labor. | 

‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread !” 
But every one wants as much bread and as little 
sweat as possible. This is the conclusion of 
history. 

Thank Heaven, history also teaches that the 
division of blessings and burdens tends to a more 


exact equality among men. Unless one is prepared - 


to deny the light of the sun, it must be admitted 
that, in this respect at least, society has made some 
progress. 

If this be true, there exists in society a natural 
and providential force, a law which causes iniquity 
gradually to cease, and makes justice more and 
more a reality. 

We say that this force exists in society, and that 
God has placed it there. If it did not exist we 
should be compelled, with the socialists, to search 
for it in those artificial means, in those arrange- 
ments which require a fundamental change in the 
physical and moral constitution of man, or rather 

18 


y 


194 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


we should consfder that search idle and vain, for 
the reason that we could not comprehend the action 
of a lever without a place cf support. 

Let us, then, endeavor te iadicate that beneficent 
force which tends progressively to overcome the 
maleficent force to which we have given the name 
spoliation, and the existence of which is only too 
well explained by reason and proved by expe- . 
rience. 

livery maleficent act necessarily has two terms— 
the point of beginning and the point of ending; 
. the man who performs the act and the man upon 
whom it is performed; or, in the language of the 
schools, the active and the passive agent. There 
are, then, two means by which the maleficent act 
can be prevented: by the voluntary absence of the 
active, or by the resistance of the passive agent. 
Whence two systems of morals arise, not antago- 
nistic but concurrent; religious or philosophical 
morality, and the morality to which I permit myself 
to apply the name economical (utilitarian). 

Religious morality, to abolish and extirpate the 
maleficent act, appeals to its author, to man in his 
capacity of active agent. It says to him: “ Reform 
yourself; purify yourself; cease.to do evil; learn 
to do well; conquer your passions; sacrifice your 
interests ; do not oppress your neighbor, to succor 
and relieve whom is your duty; be first just, then 
generous.” ‘This morality will always be the most 


TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 195 


beautiful, the most touching, that which will exhibit 
the human race in all its majesty; which will the 
best lend itself to the offices of eloquence, and will 
most excite the sympathy and admiration of man- 
kind. 

Utilitarian morality works to the same end, but 
especially addresses itself to man in his capacity of 
passive agent. It points out to him the conse- 
quences of human actions, and, by this simple 
exhibition, stimulates him to struggle against those 
which injure, and to honor those which are useful 
to him. It aims to extend among the oppressed 
masses enough good sense, enlightenment and just 
defiance, to render oppression both difficult and 
dangerous. 

It may also be remarked that utilitarian morality 
is not without its influence upon the oppressor. An 
act of spoliation causes good and evil—evil for him 
who suffers it, good for. him in whose favor it is 
exercised—else the act would not have been per- 
formed. But the good by no means compensates 
the evil. The evil always, and necessarily, predom- 
inates over the good, because the very fact of 
oppression occasions a loss of force, creates dangers, 
provokes reprisals, and requires costly precautions. 
The simple exhibition of these effects is not then 
limited to retaliation of the oppressed ; it places all, 
whose hearts are not perverted, on the side of jus- 
tice, and alarms the security of the oppressors 
themselves. 


196 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


But it is easy to understand that this morality 
which is simply a scientific demonstration, and 
would even lose its efficiency if it changed its char- 
acter; which addresses itself not to the heart but 
to the intelligence ; which seeks not to persuade but 
to convince; which gives proofs not counsels ; 
whose mission is not to move but to enlighten, and 
which obtains over vice no other victory than to 
deprive it of its booty—it is easy to understand, I 
say, how this morality has been accused of being 
dry and prosaic. The reproach is true without 
being just. It is equivalent to saying that political 
economy is not everything, does not comprehend 
everything, is not the universal solvent. But who 
has ever made such an exorbitant pretension in its 
name? ‘The accusation would not be well founded 
unless political economy presented its processes as 
final, and denied to philosophy and religion the use 
of their direct and proper means of elevating 
humanity. Look at the concurrent action of 
morality, properly so called, and of political 
economy—the one inveighing against spohiation by 
an exposure of its moral ugliness, the other bring- 
ing it into discredit in our judgment, by showing its 
evil consequences. Concede that the triumph of 
the religious moralist, when realized, is more beau- 
tiful, more consoling and more radical; at the same 
time it is not easy to deny that the triumph of 
economical science is more facile and more certain. 


“TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 197 


In a few lines, more valuable than many volumes, 
J. B. Say has already remarked that there are two 
ways of removing the disorder introduced by hypoc- 
risy into an honorable family; to reform Tartuffe, 
or sharpen the wits of Orgon. Mboliere, that great 
painter of human life, seems constantly to have had 
in view the second process as the more efficient. 

Such is the case on the world’s stage. Tell me 
what Ceesar did, and I will tell you what were the 
Romans of his day. 

Tell me what modern diplomacy has accom- 
plished, and I will describe the moral condition of 
the nations. 

We should not pay two milliards of taxes if we 
did not appoint those who consume them to vote 
them. | ie 

We should not have so much trouble, difficulty 
and expense with the African question if we were 
as well convinced that two and two make four in 

political economy as in arithmetic. 
_ M. Guizot would never have had occasion to say : 
‘France is rich enough to pay for her glory,” if 
France had never conceived a false idea of glory. 

The same statesman never would have said: 
“Taberty ts too precious for France to traffic in tt,” if 
France had well understood that liber Ue and a large 
budget are incompatible. 

Let religious morality then, if it can, touch the 
heart of the Tartuffes, the Czesars, the conquerors 


198 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of Algeria, the sinecurists, the monopolists, ete. 
The mission of political economy is to enlighten 
their dupes. Of these two processes, which is the 
more efficient aid to social progress? I believe it 
is the second. I believe that humanity cannot 
escape the necessity of first learning a defensive 
morality. I have read, observed, and made diligent 
inquiry, and have been unable to find any abuse, 
_ practiced to any considerable extent, that has per- 
ished by voluntary renunciation on the part of those 
who profited by it. On the contrary, I have seen 
many that have yielded to the manly resistance of 
those who suffered by them. 

To describe the consequences of abuses, is the 
most efficient way of destroying the abuses them- 
selves. And this is true particularly in regard to 
abuses which, like the protective system, while 
inflicting real evil upon the masses, are to those 
who seem to profit by them only an illusion and a 
deception. 

Well, then, does this species of morality realize 
all the social perfection which the sympathetic 
nature of the human heart and its noblest faculties 
cause us to hope for? This I by no means pretend. 
Admit the general diffusion of this defensive 
morality—which, after all, is only a knowledge that 
the best understood interests are in accord with 
general utility and justice. A society, although 
very well regulated, might not be very attractive, 


TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 199 


where there were no knaves, only because there were 
no fools; where vi@e, always latent, and, so to 
speak, overcome by famine, would only stand in 
need of available plunder in order to be restored to 
vigor; where the prudence of the individual would 
be guarded by the vigilance of the mass, and, 
finally, where reforms, regulating external acts, 
would not have penetrated to the consciences of 
men. Such a state of society we sometimes see 
typified in one of those exact, rigorous and just 
men who is ever ready to resent the slightest 
infringement of his rights, and shrewd in avoiding 
impositions. You esteem him—possibly you admire 
him. You may make him your deputy, but you 
would not necessarily choose him for a friend. 

Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of crim 
inating each other, act in concert, and attack vice at 
its opposite poles. While the economists perform 
their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just 
and necessary opposition, studying and exposing the 
real nature of actions and things, let the religious 
moralist, on his part, perform his more attractive, 
but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very 
body of iniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, 
paint the charms of beneficence, self-denial and 
devotion, open the fountains of virtue where we 
ean only choke the sources of vice—this is his duty. 
It is noble and beautiful. But why does he dispute 
ithe utility of that which belongs to us? 


200 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


In a society which, though not superlatively vir- 
tuous, should nevertheless be regulated by the influ- 
ences of economical morality (which is the knowl- 
edge of the economy of society), would there not be 
a field for the progress of religious morality ? 

Habit, it has been said, is a second nature A 
country where the individual had become unaccus- 
tomed to injustice, simply by the force of an enlight- 
ened public opinion, might, indeed, be pitiable ; 
but it seems to me it would be well prepared to 
receive an education more elevated and more pure. 
. To be disaccustomed to evil is a great step towards 
becoming good. Mencannot remain stationary. 
Turned aside from the paths of vice which would 
lead only to infamy, they appreciate better the 
attractions of virtue. Possibly it may be necessary 
for society to pass through this prosaic state, where 
men practice virtue by calculation, to be thence 
elevated to that more poetic region where they will 
no longer have need of such an exercise. 


-THE TWO HATCHETS. 201 


1g 8e 
JHE TWO HATCHETS. 


Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin- Gridaine, 
Minister of Commerce. 


Mr. MANUFACTURER-MINISTER: I am a carpen- 
ter, as was Jesus; [ handle the hatchet and the 
plane to serve you. 

In chopping and splitting from morning until 
night in the domain of my lord, the King, the idea 
ee occurred to me that my ihe was as much 
national as yours. 

And accordingly I don’t understand why pro- 
tection should not visit my shop as well as your 
manufactory. ; 

For indeed, if you make cloths, I make roofs, 
Both by different means protect our patrons from 
cold and rain. But I have to run after customers 
while business seeks you. You know how to 
manage this by obtaining a monopoly, while my 
business is open to any one who chooses to engage 
in it. 

What is there astonishing in this? Mr. Cunin, 
the Cabinet Minister, has not forgotten Mr. Cunin, 
the manufacturer, as was very natural. But unfor- 
tunately, my humble occupation has not given a 
Minister to France, although it has given a Saviour 


to the world. 
Tae 


202 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


And this Saviour, in the immortal code which he © 
bequeathed to men, did not utter the smallest word 
by virtue of which carpenters might feel author- 
ized to enrich themselves as you do at the expense 
of others. 

Look, then, at my position. I earn thirty cents 
every day, excepts Sundays and holidays. If I 
apply to you for work at the same time with a 
Flemish workman, you give him the preference. 

But I need clothing. Ifa Belgian weaver puts 
his cloth beside yours, you drive both him and his 
cloth out of the country. Consequently, forced to 
buy at your shop, where it is dearest, my poor 
- thirty cents are really worth only twenty-eight. 

What did I say? They are worth only twenty- 
six. for, instead of driving the Belgian weaver 
away at your own expense (which would be the least 
you could do) you compel me to pay those who, in 
your interest, force him out of the market. 

And since a large number of your fellow-legisla- 
tors, with whom you seem to have an excellent 
understanding, take away from me a cent or two 
each, under pretext of protecting somebody’s coal, 
or oil, or wheat, when the balance is struck, I find 
that sf my thirty cents I have only fifteen left from 
the pillage. 

Possibly, you may answer that those few pennies — 
which pass thus, without compensation, from my 
pocket to yours, support 2 number of people about 


THE TWO HATCHETS. 203 


your chateau, and at the same time assist you in 
keeping up your establishment. To which, if you 
would permit me, I would reply, they would like- 
wise support a number of persons in my cottage. 

However this may be, Hon. Minister-Manufac- 
turer, knowing that I should meet with a cold récep- 
tion were I to ask you to renounce the restriction 
imposed upon your customers, as I have a right to, 
I prefer to follow the fashion, and to demand for 
myself, also, a little morsel of protection. 

To this, doubtless you will interpose some objec: 
tions. “Friend,” you will say, “I would be glad 
to protect you and your colleagues; but how can I 
confer such favors upon the labor of carpenters? 
Shall I prohibit the importation of houses by land 
and by sea?” 

This would seem sufficiently ridiculous, but by~ 
giving much thought to the subject, I have discoy- 
ered a way to protect the children of St. Joseph, 
and you will, I trust, the more readily grant it since 
it differs in no respect from the privilege which you 
vote for yourself every year. ‘This wonderful way 
is to prohibit the use of sharp hatchets in France. 

I say that this restriction would be neither more 
illogical nor arbitrary than that which you subject 
us to in regard to your cloth. 

Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because 
they sell cheaper than you do. And why do they 
sell cheuper than you do? Because they are in 


204 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


some way or another your superiors as manufac- 
turers. 

Between you and the Belgians, then, there ‘is 
exactly the same difference that there is between a 
dull hatchet and a sharp one. And you compel 
me, ¢ carpenter, to buy the workmanship of your 
dull hatchet ! | 

Consider France a laborer, obliged to live by his 
daily toil, and desiring, among other things, to pur- 
chase cloth. There are two means of doing this. 
The first is to card the wool and weave the cloth 
himself; the second is to manufacture clocks, or 
Wines, or wall-paper, or something of the sort, and 
exchange them in Belgium for cloth. 

The process which gives the larger result may 
be represented by the sharp hatchet; the other pro- 
cess by the dull one. 3 

You will not deny that at the present day in 
France it is more difficult to manufacture cloth than 
to cultivate the vine—the former is the dull hatchet, 
the latter the sharp one—on the contrary, you make 
this greater difficulty the very reason why you 
recommend to us the worst of the two hatchets. 

Now, then, be consistent, if you will not be just, 
and treat the poor carpenters as well as you treat 
yourself Make a law which shall read: “ It is for- 
bidden to use beams or shingles which have not 
been fashioned by dull hatchets.” 

Ana you will immediately perceive the result. 


INFERIOR COUNCIL OF LABOR. 205 


Where we now strike an hundred blows with the 
ax, we shall be obliged to give three hundred. 
What a powerful encouragement to industry! <Ap- 
prentices, journeymen and masters, we should 
sufferno more. Weshould be greatly sought after, 
and go away well paid. Whoever wishes to enjoy 
a roof must leave us to make his tariff, just as 
buyers of cloth are now obliged to submit to you. 

As for those free-trade theorists, should they ever 
venture to call the utility of this system in question 
we should know where to go for an unanswerable 
argument. Your investigation of 1834 is at our 
service. We should fight them with that, for there 
you have admirably pleaded the cause of prohibi- 
tion, and of dull hatchets, which are both the 
same. | 


IV. 
INFERIOR COUNCIL OF LABOR. 


“ WHat! You have the assurance to demand . 
for every citizen the right to buy, sell, trade, ex- 
change, and to render service for service according 
to his own discretion, on the sole condition that he 
will conduct himself honestly, and not defraud the 


206 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


revenue? Would you rob the workingman of his 
labor, his wages and his bread ?” 

This is what is said to us). I know what the gen- 
eral opinion is; but I have desired to know what 
the laborers themselves think. I have had an 
excellent opportunity of finding out. 

It was not one of those Superior Councils of 
Industry (Committee on the Revision of the Tariff), 
where large manufacturers, who style themselves 
laborers, influential ship-builders who . imagine 
themselves seamen, and wealthy bondholders who 
think themselves workmen, meet and legislate in 
behalf of that philanthropy with whose nature we 
are so well acquainted. 

No, they were workmen ‘to the manor born,” 
real, practical laborers, such as joiners, carpenters, 
masons, tailors, shoemakers, blacksmiths, grocers, 
etc, etc., who had established in my village a 
Mutual Ard Society. Upon my own private author 
ity I transformed it into an Inferior Council of Labor 
(People’s Committee for Revising the Tariff), and I 
obtained a report which is as good as any other, 
although unencumbered by figures, and not dis- 
tended to the proportions of a quarto volume and 

_ printed at the expense of the State. 

The subject of my inquiry was the real or sup- 
posed influence of the protective system upon these 
poor people. The President, indeed, informed me 
that the institution of such an inquiry was some. 


INFERIOR COUNCIL OF LABOR. 207 


what in contravention of the principles of the 
society. For, in France, the land of liberty, those 
whe desire to form associations must renounce 
political discussions—that is to say, the discussion 
of their ccmnuion interests. However, after much 
hesitation, he mede the question the order of the 
day. 

The assembly was divided into as many sub-com- 
mittees as there wers different trades represented. 
A blank was handed to each sub-committee, which, 
after fifteen days’ discussion, was to be filled and 
returned. 

On the appointed day the vereravle President 
took the chair (official style, for it was o1.ly a stool) 
and found upon the table (official style, again, for 
it was a deal plank across a barrel) a doren r-ports, 
which he read in succession. 

The first presented was that of the tailors. Here 
it is, as accurately as if it had been photographed : 


RESULTS OF PROTECTION—REPORT OF THE TAILORS. 


Disadoantages. Advantages. 
1, On account of the protective tariff, we pay more None. 
for our own bread, meat, sugar, thread, etc., which is] 4, We have ex- 
equivalent to a considerable diminution of our wages. amined the ques- 


2. On account of the protective tariff, our patrons are|tion in every 
also obliged to pay more for everything, and have less to | light, and have 
spend for clothes, consequently we have less work and been A unable to 
smaller profits. ne ee a single 

3. On account of the protective tariff, clothes are ex- ee me poe: 
pensive, and peopie make them wear longer, which | tective system is 
results ina loss of work, and compels us to. offer our | advantageous te 
servicos at greatly reduced rates. our trade. 


208 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Here is another report: 
‘EFFECTS OF PROTECTION—REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHt. 


Disadvantages. Advantages. 
1. The protective system imposes a tax (which does 
not get into the Treasury) every time we eat, drink, 
warm, or clothe ourselves. 
2. It imposes a similar tax upon our neighbors, and 
hence, having less money, most of them use wooden 
pegs, instead of buying nails, which deprives us of labor. 
8. It keeps the price of iron so high that it can no cR8. 
longer be uséd in the country for plows, or gates, or 
house fixtures, and our trade, which might give work to 
80 many who have none, docs not even give ourselves 
enough to do. 
4. The deficit occasioned in the Treasury by those 
goods which do not enter is made up by taxes on our 
salt. 


The other reports, with which I will not trouble 
the reader, told the same story. Gardeners, carpen- 
ters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complained of the 
same grievances. | 

I am sorry there were ‘no day laborers in our asso- 
ciation. Their report would certainly have been 
exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, the 
poor laborers of our province, all protected as they 
are, have not a cent, and, after having taken care 
of their cattle, cannot go themselves to the Mutual 
Aid Society. The pretended favors of protection do 
not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern 
society. 

What I would especially remark is the good 
sense with which our villagers have perceived not 
only the direct evil results of protection, but also 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. © 209 


the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, 
reacts upon themselves. 

This is a fact, it seems to me, which the econo- 
mists of the school of the Moniteur Industriel do 
not understand. 

And possibly some men, who are fascinated by a 
very little protection, the agriculturists, for instance, 
would voluntarily renounce it if they noticed this 
side of the question. Possibly, they might say to 
themselves: “It is better to support one’s self sur- 
rounded bv well-to-do neighbors, than to be pro- 
tected in the midst of poverty.” For to seek to 
encourage every branch of industry by successively 
creating a void around them, is as vain as to attempt 
to jump away from one’s shadow. 


V. 
DEARNESS — CHEAPNESS. 


I CONSIDER it my duty to say a few words in 
regard to the delusion caused by the words dear 
and cheap. At the first glance, I am aware, you 
may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat 
subtile, but whether subtile or not, the question is 


whether they are true. ¥or my part I consider 
18 


210 SOPHISMS Of PROTECTION. 


them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted 
to cause reflection among a large number of those 
who cherish a sincere faith in the efficacy of ae 
tection. 

Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of 
protection, we are all obliged to make use of the 
expression dearness and cheapness. ‘The former 
take sides in behalf of cheapness, having in_ view 
the interests of consumers. The latter pronounce 
themselves in favor of dearness, preoccupying them- 
selves solely with the interests of the producer. 
Others intervene, saying, producer and consumer are 
one and the same, which leaves wholly undecided 
the question whether cheapness or dearness ought 
to be the object of legislation. | 

In this conflict of opinion it seems to me that 
there is only one position for the law to take—to 
allow prices to regulate themselves naturally. But 
the principle of “let alone” has obstinate enemies. 
They insist upon legislation without even knowing 
the desired objects of legislation. It would seem, 
however, to be the duty of those who wish to create 
high or low prices artificially, to state, and to sub- 
stantiate, the reasons of their preference. The bur- 
den of proof is upon them. Liberty is always 
considered beneficial until the contrary is proved, 
and to allow prices naturally to regulate themselves 
is liberty. But the roles have been changed. The 
partisans of high prices have obtained a triumph 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. 211 


for their system, and it has fallen to defenders of 
natural prices to prove the advantages of their sys- 
tem. The argument on both sides is conducted 
with two words. Itis very essential, then, to under- 
stand their meaning. 

It must be granted at the outset that a series of 
events have happened well calculated to disconcert 
both sides. 

- In order to produce high prices the protectionists 
have obtained high tariffs, and still low prices have 
come to disappoint their expectations. 

In order to produce low prices, free traders have 
sometimes carried their point, and, to their great 
astonishment, the result in some instances has been 
an increase instead of a reduction in prices. 

For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law 
was passed imposing a duty of twenty-two per cent. 
upon imported wools, and the result has been that 
native wools have been sold for much lower prices 
than before the passage of the law. 

In England a law in behalf of the consumers 
was passed, exempting foreign wools from duty, 
and the consequence has been that native wooly 
have sold higher than ever before. 

And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of 
wool has no special or peculiar nature which takes 
it out of the general law governing prices. The 
same fact has been reproduced under analogous cir- 
cumstances. Contrary to all expectation, protection 


212, SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


has frequently resulted in low prices, anu free trade 
in high prices. Hence there has been a deal of 
perplexity in the discussion, the protectionists say- 
ing to their adversaries: “These low prices that 
you talk about so much are the result of our sys- 
tem;” and the free traders replying: ‘Those high 
prices which you find so profitable are the conse- 
quence of free trade.” | 

There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illu- 
sion, which must be dispelled. This I will endeavor 
to do. 

Suppose two isolated nations, each composed of 
a million inhabitants; admit that, other things 
being equal, one nation had exactly twice as much 
of everything as the other—twice as much wheat, 
wine, iron, fuel, books, clothing, furniture, ete. It 
will be conceded that one will have twice as much 
wealth as the other. 

There is, however, no reason for the statement 
that the absolute prices are different in the two 
nations. They possibly may be higher in the 
wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the 
United States everything is nominally dearer than 
in Poland, and that, nevertheless, the people there 
are less generally supplied with everything; by . 
which it may be seen that the abundance of pro- 
ducts, and not the absolute price, constitutes wealth. 
In order, then, accurately to compare free trade and 
protection the inquiry should not be which of the 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. 213 


two causes high prices or low prices, Dut which of 
the two produces abundance or scarcity. 

For observe this: Products are exchanged, the 
one for the other, and a relative scarcity and a rela- 
tive abundance leave the absolute price exactly at 
the same point, but not so the condition of men. 

Let us look into the subject a little further. © 

Since the increase and the reduction of duties. 
have been accompanied by results so different from 
what had been expected, a fall of prices frequently 
succeeding the increase of the tariff, and a rise some- 
times following a reduction of duties, it has become - 
necessary for political economy to attempt the ex- 
planation of a phenomenon which so overthrows 
received ideas ; for, whatever may be said, science 
is simply a faithful exposition and a true explana- 
tion of facts. 

This phenomenon may be easily explained by 
one circumstance which should never be lost sight 
of. ? 

It is that there are two causes for high prices, and 
not one merely. 

The same is tzue of low prices. One of the best 
established principles of political economy is that 
. price is determined by the law of supply and 
demand. 

The price is then affected by two conditions— 
the demand and the supply. These conditions are 
necessarily subject to variation. The relations of 


914 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


demand to supply may be exactly countetpalanced, 
or may be greatly disproportionate, and the varia- 
tions of price are almost interminable. 

Prices rise either on account of augmented 
demand or diminished supply. 

They fall by reason of an augmentation of the 
supply or a diminution of the demand. 

Consequently there are two kinds of dearness 
and two kinds of cheapness. There is a bad dear- 
ness, which results from a diminution of the sup- 
ply ; for this implies scarcity and privation. There 
is a good dearness—that which results from an 
increase of demand; for this indicates the aug- 
mentation of the general wealth. 

There is also a good cheapness, resulting from 
abundance. And there is a baneful cheapness— 
such as results from the cessation of demand, the 
inability of consumers to purchase. 

And observe this: Prohibition causes at the 
same time both the dearness and the cheapness 
which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resulting 
from a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its 
avowed object), and a bad cheapness, resulting from 
a diminution of the demand, because it gives a 
false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms 
consumers with taxes and restrictions. 

So that, as regards the price, these two tendencies 
neutralize each other; and for this reason, the pro- 
tective system, restricting the supply and the de- 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. 215 


mand at the same time, does not realize the high 
prices which are its object. 

But with respect to the condition oi: the people, 
these two tendencies do not neutralize each other ; 
on the contrary, they unite in impoverishing them. 

The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite. 
Possibly it does not cause the cheapness which it 
promises ; for it also has two tendencies, the one 
towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting 
from the increase of supply, or from abundance; 
the other towards that dearness consequent upon 
the increased demand and the development of the 
general wealth. ‘These two tendencies neutralize 
themselves as regards the mere price; but they con- 
cur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition of 
mankind. In a word, under the protective system 
men recede towards a condition of feebleness as 
regards both supply and demand; under the free- 
trade system, they advance towards a condition 
where development is gradual without any necessary 
increase in the absolute prices of things. 

Price is not a good criterion of wealth. It might 
continue the same when society had relapsed into 
the most abject misery, or had advanced to a high 
state of prosperity. | 

Let me make application of this doctrine in a few 
words: A farmer in the south of France supposes 
himself as rich as Croesus, because he is protected 
by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as 


216 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Job—no matter, he will none the less suppose that 
this protection will sooner or later make him rich. 
Under these circumstances, if the question was pro- © 
pounded to him, as it was by the committee of the 
Legislature, in these terms: “ Do you want to be 
subject to foreign competition? yes or no,” his first 
answer would be “No,” and the committee would 
record his reply with great enthusiasm. 

We should go, however, to the bottom of things. 
Doubiless foreign competition, and competition of 
any kind, is always inopportune; and, if any trade 
could be permanently rid of it, business, for a time, 
would be prosperous. 

But protection‘is not an isolated favor. It isa 
system. If, in order to protect the farmer, it occa- 
sions a scarcity of wheat and of beef, in behalf of 
other industries it produces a scarcity of iron, cloth, 
fuel, tools, ete.—in short, a scarcity of everything. 

If, then, the scarcity of wheat has a tendency to 
increase the price by reason of the diminution of 
the supply, the scarcity of all other products for 
which wheat is exchanged has likewise a tendency 
to depreciate the value of wheat on account of a 
falling off of the demand; so that itis by no 
means certain that wheat will be a mill dearer under 
a protective tariff than under a system of free 
trade. This alone is certain, that inasmuch as there 
is a smaller amount of everything in the country, 
each individual will be more poorly provided with 
everything. 


or 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. FAT 


The farmer would do well to consider whether it 
would not be more desirable for him to allow the 
importation of wheat and beef, and, as a conse- 
quence, to be surrounded by a well-to-do com- - 
munity, able to consume and to pay for every agri- 
cultural product. — ) 

There is a certain province where the men are 
covered with rags, dwell in hovels, and subsist on 
chestnuts. How can agriculture flourish there? 
What can they make the earth produce, with the 
expectation of profit? Meat? They eat none. 
Milk? They drink only the water of springs.. But- 
ter? It isan article of luxury far beyond them. 
Wool? They get along without it as much as 
possible. Can any one imagine that all these 
objects of consumption can be thus left untouched 
by the masses, without lowering prices? 

That which we say of a farmer, we can say of a 
manufacturer. Cloth-makers assert that foreign 
competition will lower prices owing to the increased 
quantity offered. Very well, but are not these 
prices raised by the increase of thedemand? Is the 
consumption of cloth a fixed and invariable quan- 
tity? Is each oneas well provided with it as he 
might and should be? And if the general wealth 
were developed by the abolition of all these taxes 
and hindrances, would not the first use made of it 
by the population be to clothe themselves better? — 


Therefore the question, the eternal question, is 
20 


218 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


not whether protection favors this or that special 
branch of industry, but whether, all things con- 
sidered, restriction is, in its nature, more profitable 
than freedom? 

Now, no person can maintain that proposition. 
And just this explains the admission which our 
opponents continually make to us: “ You are right 
on principle.” 

If that is true, if restriction aids each special 
industry only through a greater injury to the gen- 
eral prosperity, let us understand, then, that the price 
itself, considering that alone, expresses a relation 
between each special industry and the general indus- 
try, between the supply and the demand, and that, 
reasoning from these premises, this remuneratve 
price (the object of protection) is more hindered 
than favored by it. 


APPENDIX. 


We published an article entitled Dearness-Cheap- 
ness, which gained for us the two following letters. 
We publish them, with the answers : 


‘‘DrarR Mr. Eprror :—You upset all my ideas. I preached 
in favor of free trade, and found it very convenient to put prom- 
inently forward the idea of cheapness. I went everywhere, 
saying, ‘' With free trade, bread, meat, woolens, linen, iron and 
coal will fall in price." This displeased those who sold, but 
delighted those who bought. Now, you raise a doubt as to 
whether cheapness is the result of free trade. But if not, of what 
use is it? What will the people gain, if foreign competition, 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. 219 


which may interfere with them in their sales, does not favor 
thém in their purchases?”’ 


My Drar Free TrRADER:—Allow us to say 
that you have but half read the article which pro- 
voked your letter. We said that free trade acted 
precisely like roads, canals and railways, like every- 
thing which facilitates communications, and like 
everything which destroys obstacles. Its first ten- 
dency is to increase the quantity of the article which 
is relieved from duties, and consequently to lower its 
price. But by increasing, at the same time, the 
quantity of all the things for which this article is 
exchanged, it increases the demand, and conse- 
quently the price rises. You ask us what the peo- 
ple will gain. Suppose they have a balance with 
certain scales, in each one of which they have for 
their use a certain quantity of the articles which you | 
have enumerated. If a little grain is put in one 
scale it will gradually sink, but if an equal quan- 
tity of cloth, iron and coal is added in the others, | 
the equilibrium will be maintained. Looking at 
the beam above, there will be nochange. Looking 
at the people, we shall see them better fed, clothed 
and warmed. 


“DEAR Mr, EDITOR:—I am acloth manufacturer, and a protec- 
tionist. I confess that your article on dearness and cheapness hag 
led me to reflect. It has something specious about it, andif welJ 
proven, would work my conversion,”’ 


220 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


My DEAR PrRotTeEcTionist:—We say that the 
end and aim of your restrictive measures is a wrong- 
ful one—artificial dearness. But we do not say that - 
they always realize the hopes of those who initiate 
them. Itis certain that they inflict on the consumer 
all the evils of dearness. It is not certain that the 
producer gets the profit Why? Because if they 
diminish the supply they also diminish the demand. 
_ This proves that in the economical arrangement 
of this world there isa moral force, a vis medicatriz, 
which in the long run causes inordinate ambition to 
become the prey of a delusion. 

Pray, notice, sir, that one of the elements of the 
prosperity of each special branch of industry is the 
general prosperity. The rent of a house is not 
merely in proportion to what it has cost, but also to 
the number and means of the tenants. Do two 
houses which are precisely alike necessarily rent for 
the same sum? Certainly not, if one is in Paris 
and the other in Lower Brittany. Let us never 
speak of a price without regarding the conditions, 
and let us understand that there is nothing more 
futile than to try to build the prosperity of the parts 
on the ruin of the whole. This is the attempt of 
the restrictive system. 

Competition always has been, and always will be, 
disagreeable to those who are affected by it. Thus 
we see that in all times and in all places men try to | 
get rid of it. We know, and you too, perhaps, a 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS. 221 


municipal council where the resident merchants 
make a furious war on the foreign ones. Their pro- 
jectiles are import duties, fines, etc., ete. 
_ Now, just think what would have become of 
Paris, for instance, if this war had been carried on 
there with success. 

Suppose that the first shoemaker who settled 
there had succeeded in keeping out all others, and 
that the first tailor, the first mason, the first printer, 
the first watchmaker, the first hair-dresser, the first 
physician, the first baker, had been equally fortunate. 
Paris would still be a village, with twelve or fifteen 
hundred inhabitants. But it was not thus. Hach 
one, except those whom you still keep away, came 
to make money in this market, and that is precisely 
what has built it up. - It has been a long series of 
collisions for the enemies of competition, and from 
one collision after another, Paris has become a city 
of a million inhabitants. The general prosperity has 
gained by this, doubtless, but have the shoemakers 
and tailors, individually, lost anything by it?) For 
you, this is the question. As competitors came, you 
said: The price of boots will fail. Has it been 
so? No, for if the supply has increased, the demand 
has increased also. | 

Thus will it be with cloth; therefore let it come 
in. It is true that you will have more competitors, 
but you will also have more customers, and richer 
ones, Did you never think of this when seeing 


922. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


nine-tenths of your countrymen deprived during 
the winter of that superior cloth that you make? 

This is not a very long lesson to learn. If you 
wish to prosper, let your customers do the same. 

When this is once known, each one will seek his 
welfare in the general welfare. Then, jealousies 
between individuals, cities, provinces and nations, 
will no longer vex the world. 


VI. 
TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 


MANY papers have attacked me before you. 
Will you not read my defense ? 

Iam not mistrustful. When a man writes or 
speaks, I believe that he thinks what he says. 

What is the question? ‘To ascertain which is 
the more advantageous for you, restriction or 
liberty. 

I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is 
restriction; it is for each one to prove his case. 

Was it necessary to insinuate that we are the 
agents of England ? 

You will see how easy recrimination would be on 
this ground. 

We are, they say, agents of the English, because 


TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 226 


some of us have used the English words meeting, 
free trader | 

And do not they use the English words drawback 
and budget ? 

We imitate Cobden and the English democracy ! 

Do not they parody Bentinck and the British 
aristocracy ? 

We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine 
of liberty. 

Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of 
protection ? | 

We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux 
and the South. 

Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the 
manufacturing North ? | 

We favor the secret designs of the ministry, 
which desires to turn public attention away from 
the protective policy. 

Do not they favor the views of the Custom 
House officers, who gain more than anybody else 
by this protective regime ? 

So you see that if we did not ignore this war of 
epithets, we should not be without weapons. 

But that is not the point in issue. 

The question which I shall not lose sight of is 
this: 

Which ts better for the working-classes, to be free or 
not to be free to purchase from abroad ? 

Workmen, they say to you, “If you are free to 


994 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


buy from abroad these things which you now make 
yourselves, you will no longer make them. You 
will be without work, without wage,s and without 
bread. It is then for your own good that your lib- 
erty be restricted.” 

This. objection. recurs in all forms. They say, 
for instance, “If we clothe ourselves with Hnglish 
cloth, if we make our plowshares with English 
iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if 
we wipe our hands with English napkins, what will 
become of the French workmen—what will become 
of the national labor 2?” 

T'ell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at 
Boulogne, and said to every Englishman who 
landed: If you will give me those English boots, 
I will give you this French hat; or, if you will let 
me have this English horse, I will let you have this 
French carriage; or, Are you willing to exchange 
this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, 
again, Does it suit you to barter your Newcastle 
coal for this Champagne wine? I ask you whether, 
supposing this man makes his proposals with 
average judgment, it can be said that our national 
labor, taken as a whole, would be harmed by it? 

Would it be more so if there were twenty of 
these people offering to exchange services at Bou- 
logne instead of one; if a million barters were made 
instead of four; and if the intervention of mer: 
chants and money was called on to facilitate them 
and multiply them indefinitely ? 


TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 22.5 


Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale 
to sell again at retail, or at retail to sell again at 
wholesale, it will always be found, if the matter is 
followed out to the end, that commerce consists of 
mutual barter of products for products, of services for 
services. If, then, one barter does not injure the 
national labor, since it implies as much national labor 
given as foreign labor received, a hundred million of 
them cannot hurt the country. 

But, you will say, where is the advantage? ‘The 
advantage consists in making a better use of the 
resources of each country, so that the same amount 
of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being 
everywhere. 7 

There are some who employ singular tactic 
against you. They begin by admitting the supe- 
riority of freedom over the prohibitive system, 
doubtless in order that they may not have to defend 
themselves on that ground. 

Next they remark that in going from one system 
to another there will be some displacement of labor. 

Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, 
according to themselves, this displacement must 
cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they 
make of them the principal subject of discussion ; 
they present them as the exclusive and definite 
result of reform, and thus try to enlist you under 
the standard of monopoly. 


These tactics have been employed in the service 
21 


226 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


of all abuses, and I must frankly admit one thing, 
that it always embarrasses even the friends of those 
reforms which are most useful to the people. You 
will understand why. 

When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself 
upon it. 

Human existences connect themselves with it, 
others with these, then still others, and this forms 
a great edifice. 

Do you raise your hand against it? Hach one 
protests ; and notice this particularly, those persons 
who protest always seem at the first glance to be 
right, because it is easier to show the disorder which 
must accompany the reform than the order which 
will follow it. 

The friends of the abuse cite particular instances ; 
they name the persons and their workmen who will 
be disturbed, while the poor devil of a reformer 
can only refer to the general good, which must in- 
sensibly diffuse itself among the masses. ‘This 
does not have the effect which the other has. 

Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing 
slavery. ‘ Unhappy people,” they say to the col- 
ored men, “who will feed you? The master dis- 
tributes floggings, but he also distributvs rations.” 

It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds 
the slave, but his own labor which feeds both him- 
self and master. | 

When the convents of Spain were reformed, they — 


"YO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 227 


said to the beggars, ‘Where will you find broth 
and clothing? The Abbot is your providence. Is 
it-not very convenient to apply to him?” 

And the beggars said: “That is true. If the 
Abbot goes, we see what we lose, but we do not see 
what will come in its place.” 

They do not notice that if the convents gave 
alms they lived on alms, so that thé people had to 
give them more than they could receive back. 

Thus, workmen, a monopoly imperceptibly puts 
taxes on your shoulders, and then furnishes you 
work with the proceeds. 

Your false friends say to you: If there was no 
monopoly, who would furnish you work? 

You answer: This is true, this is true. The 
labor which the monopolists procure us is certain. 
The promises of liberty are uncertain. 

For you do not see that they first take money 
from you, and then give you back a part of it for 
your labor. 

Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, 
you will give each other work. With the money 
which will no longer be taken from you, the shoe- 
maker will dress better, and will make work for the 
tailor. ‘The tailor will have new shoes oftener, and 
keep the shoemaker employed. So it will be with 
all occupations. 

They say that with freedom there will be fae 
workmen in the mines and the mills. 


228 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


I do not believe it. But if this does happen, it 
is necessarily because there will be more labor 
freely in the open air. 

For if, as they say, these mines and spinning 
mills can be sustained only by the aid of taxes 
imposed on everybody for their benefit, these taxes 
once abolished, everybody will be more comfortably 
off, and it is the comfort of all which feeds the 
labor of each one. 

Excuse me if I linger at this demonstration. I 
have so great a desire to see you on the side of 
liberty. 

In France, capital invested in hanteaeee yields, 
I suppose, five per cent. profit. But here is Mon- 
dor, who has one hundred thousand francs invested | 
in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. 
The difference between the loss and gain is ten 
thousand francs. Whatdo they do? They assess 
upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which 
is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it 
is very skillfully disguised. It is not the tax gath- 
erer who comes to ask you your part of the tax, but 
you psy it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time 
you buy your hatchets, your trowels, and your 
planes. Then they say to you: If you do not pay 
this tax, Mondor can work no longer, and his em- 
ployes, John and James, will be without labor. If 
this tax was remitted, would you not get work 
yourselves, and on your own account too ? 


TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 229 


And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer 
this soft method of obtaining his profit by a tax, 
he will use his wits to turn his loss into a gain, and 
John and James will not be dismissed. ‘Then all 
will be profit for all. 

You will persist, perhaps, saying: “ We under- 
stand that after the reform there will be in general 
more work than before, but in the meanwhile John 
and James will be on the street.” 

To which I answer : 

First. When employment changes its place 
only to increase, the man who has two arms and a 
heart is not long on the street. 

Second. There is nothing to hinder the State 
from reserving some of its funds to avoid stoppages 
of labor in the transition, which 1 do not myself 
believe will occur. 

Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get 
into a condition which is better for all, and which is 
certainly more just, it is absolutely necessary to 
brave a few painful moments, the workmen are 
ready, or I know them ill. God grant that it may 
be the same with employers. i 

Well, because you are workmen, are you not 
intelligent and moral? It seems that your pre- 
tended friends forget it. It is surprising that they 
discuss such a subject before you, speaking of 
wages and interests, without once pronouncing the 
word justice, They know, however, full well that 


230 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


the situation is unjust. Why, then, have they not 
the courage to tell you so, and say, ‘“ Workmen, 
an iniquity: prevails in the country, but it is of 
advantage to you and it must be sustained.” Why? 
Because they know that you would answer, No. 

But it is not true that this iniquity is profitable — 
to you. Give me your attention for a few moments 
and judge for yourselves. 

What do they protectin France? Articles made 
by great manufacturers in great establishments, 
iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that this is 
done not in the interest of the employer, but in 
your interest, in order to insure you wages. 

But every time that foreign Jabor presents itself 
in the market in such a form that it may hurt you, 
but not the great manufacturers, do they not allow 
it to come in? 

Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans 
who make clothes and shoes? Why are they 
allowed to establish themselves at your side when 
cloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made 
in great mills owned by manufacturing legislators. 
But clothes are made by workmen in their rooms. 

These gentlemen want no competition in the turn- 
ing of wool into cloth, because that is their busi- 
ness; but when it comes to converting cloth into 
clothes, they admit competition, because that is 
your trade. 

When they made railroads they excluded English 


TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 231 


rails, but they imported English workmen to make 
them. Why? Itis very simple; because English 
rails compete with the great rolling mills, and 
English muscles compete only with yours. 

We do not ask them to keep out German tailors 
and English laborers. We ask that cloth and rails 
may be allowed to come in. Weask justice for 
all, equality before the law for all. 

It is a mockery to tell us that these Custom 
House restrictions have your advantage in view. 
Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, millers, masons, 
blacksmiths, merchants, grocers, jewelers, butchers, 
bakers and dressmakers, I challenge you to show 
me a single instance in which restriction profits you, 
and if you wish, I will point out four where it 
hurts you. 

And after all, just see how much of the appear- 
ance of truth this self-denial, which your journals 
attribute to the monopolists, has. 

I believe that we can call that the natural rate of 
wages which would establish itself naturally if 
there were freedom of trade. Then, when they tell 
you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if 
they told you that it added a surplus to your natural 
wages. Now, an extra natural surplus of wages 
must be taken from somewhere; it does not fall 
from the moon; it must be taken from those who 
pay it. 

You are then brought to this conclusion, that, 


Y 


9382 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


according to your pretended friends, the protective 
system has been created and brought into the 
world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed to 
laborers ! 

Tell me, is that probable ? 

Where is your place in the Chamber of Peers? 
When did you sit at the Palais Bourbon? Who 
has consulted you? Whence came this idea of 
establishing the protective system ? 

I hear your answer: We did not establish it. 
We are neither Peers nor Deputies, nor Counselors 
of State. The capitalists have done it. 

By heavens, they were in a delectable mood 
that day. What! the capitalists made this law; 
they established the prohibitive system, so that you 
laborers should make profits at their expense! 

But here is something stranger still. - 3 

How is it that your pretended friends who speak 
to you now of the goodness, generosity and self- 
denial of capitalists, constantly express regret that 
you do not enjoy your political rights? From 
their point of view, what could you do with them? | 
The capitalists have the monopoly of legislation, it 
is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have 
granted themselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, 
coal, wood and meat, which is also true. But now 
your pretended friends say that the capitalists, in 
acting thus, have stripped themselves, without 
being obliged to do it, to enrich you without your 


TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 233 


being entitled to it. Surely, if you were electors 
and deputies, you could not manage your affairs 
better ; you would not even manage them as well. 

If the industrial organization which rules us is 
made in your interest, it is a perfidy to demand 
political rights for you; for these democrats of a 
new species can never get out of this dilemma; the 
law, made by the present law-makers, gives you 
more, or gives you less, than your natural wages. 
If it gives: you less, they deceive you in inviting 
you to support it. If it gives you more, they 
deceive you again by calling on you to claim politi- 
cal rights, when those who now exercise them, 
make sacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, 
could not yourselves vote. 

Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this 
article should be to cast in your hearts the germs 
of irritation against the rich. If mistaken znéerests 
still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has 
its root in errors, which are common to capitalists 
and workmen. ‘Then, far from laboring to excite 
them against one another, let us strive to bring 
them together. What must be done to accomplish 
this? If itis true that the natural social tenden- 
cies aid in effacing inequality among men, all we 
have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove 
the artificial obstructions which interfere with their 
operation, and allow the relations of different 
classes to establish themselves on the principle of 


234 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


justice, Which, to my mind, is the principle of 
FREEDOM. 


VIL. 
A CHINESE STORY, 


TuEY exclaim against the greed and the selfish 
ness of the age! 

Open the choussitid books, the thousand papers, 
the thousand pamphlets, which the Parisian presses 
-throw out every day on the country ; is not all this 
the work of little saints ? 

What spirit in the painting of the vices of the 
time! What touching tenderness for the masses! 
With what liberality they invite the rich to divide 
with the poor, or the poor to divide with the rich ! 
How many plans of social reform, social improve- 
ment, and social organization! Does not even the 
weakest writer devote himself to the well-being of 
the laboring classes? All that is required is to 
advance them a little money to give them time to 
attend to their humanitarian pursuits. 

There is nothing which does not assume to aid 
in the well-being and moral advancement of the 
people—nothing, not even the Custom House, 
You believe that it is a tax machine, like a duty or 
a toll at the end ofabridge? Notatall It is an 


A CHINESE STORY. 235 


essentially civilizing, fraternizing and equalizing 
institution. What would you have? It is the 
fashion. It is necessary to put or affect to put feel- 
ing or sentimentality everywhere, even in the cure 
of all troubles. 

But it must be admitted that the Custom House 
organization has a singular way of going to work 
to realize these philanthropic aspirations. 

It puts on foot an army of collectors, assistant 
collectors, inspectors, assistant inspectors, cashiers, 
accountants, receivers, clerks, supernumeraries, tide- 
waiters, and all this in order to exercise on the 
industry of the people that negative action which 
is summed up in the word to prevent. 

Observe that Ido not say to tax, but really to 
prevent. 

And to prevent, not acts reproved by morality, or 
opposed to public order, but transactions which are 
innocent, and which they have even admitted are 
favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. 

However, humanity is so flexible and supple that, 
in one way or another, it always overcomes these 
attempts at prevention. 

It is for the purpose of increasing labor. If 
people are kept from getting their food from abroad 
they produce it at home. It is more laborious, but 
they must live. If they are kept from passing 
along the valley, they must climb the mountains. 
It is longer, but the point.of destination must be 
reached. 


pa Ba SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


This is sad, but amusing. When the law has ~ 
thus created a certain amount of obstacles, and 
when, to overcome them, humanity has diverted a 
corresponding amount of labor, you are no longer 
allowed to call for the reform of the law; for, if you 
point out the obstacle, they show you the labor which 
it brings into play; and if you say this is not labor 
created but diverted, they answer you as does the 
Esprit Public—“ The impoverishing only is certain 
and immediate ; as for the enriching, it is more than 
problematical.” 

This recalls to me a Chingse story, which I will 
tell you. 

There were in Giinatt two great cities, Tchin and 
Tchan. A magnificent canal connected them. The 
Emperor thought fit to have immense masses of 
rock thrown into it, to make it useless. 

Seeing this, Kouang, his first Mandarin, said to 
him: “Son of Heaven, you make amistake.” To 
which the Emperor replied: ‘“Kouang, you are 
foolish.” 

You understand, of course, that I give but. the 
substance of the dialogue. 

At the end of three moons the Celestial Emperor 
had the Mandarin brought, and said to him: 
“ Kouang, look.” 

And Kouang, opening his eyes, looked. 

He saw atacertain distance from the canala 
multitude of men laboring. Some excavated, some 


A CHINESE STORY. 237 


filled up, some leveled, and some laid pavement, 
and the Mandarin, who was very learned, thought 
to himself: They are making a road. 

At the end of three more moons, the Emperor, 
having called Kouang, said to him: ‘ Look.” 

And Kouang looked. 

And he saw that the road was made; and he 
noticed that at various points, inns were building. 
A medley of foot passengers, carriages and palan- 
quins went and came, and innumerable Chinese, 
oppressed by fatigue, carried back and forth heavy 
burdens from T’chin to T’chan, and from T'chan to 
Tchin, and Kouang said: It is the destruction of 
the canal which has given labor to these poor people. 
But it did not occur to him that this labor was 
diverted from other émployments. 

Then rnore moons passed, and the Emperor said 
to Kouang: ‘“ Look.” 

And noire looked. 

He saw that the inns were always full of travelers, 
and that they being hungry, there had sprung up, 
near by, the shops of butchers, bakers, charcoal 
dealers, and bird’s nest sellers. Since these worthy 
men could not go naked, tailors, shoemakers and 
umbrella and fan dealers had settled there, and as 
they do not sleep in the open air, even in the Celes- 
tial Kmpire, carpenters, masons and _ thatchers 
congregated there. Then came police officers, 


238 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


judges and fakirs; in a word, around each stop- 
ping place there grew up a city with its suburbs. 

Said the Emperor to Kouang: “What do you 
think of this?” | 

And Kouang replied: “I could never have 
believed that the destruction of a canal could create 
so much labor for the people.” For he did not 
think that it was not labor created, but diverted ; that 
travelers ate when they went by the canal just as 
much as they did when they were forced to go by 
the road. 

However, to the great astonishment of the Chi- 
nese, the Emperor died, and this Son of Heaven 
was committed to earth. 

His successor sent for Kouang, and said to him: 
“ Clean out the canal.” , 

And Kouang said to the new Emperor: “Son of 
Heaven, you are doing wrong.” 

And the Emperor replied: ‘ Kouang, you are 
foolish.” 

But Kouang persisted and said: ‘* My Lord, what 
is your object ?” 

“My object,” said the Emperor, ‘is to facilitate 
the movement of men and things between Tchin 
and T’chan; to make transportation less expensive, 
so that the people may have tea and clotkes more 
cheaply.” 

But Kouang was in readiness. He had received, 
the evening before, some numbers of the Moniteur 


A CHINESE STORY.’ 239 


Industriel, a Chinese paper. Knowing his lesson by 
heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having 
obtained it, after striking his forehead nine times 
against the floor, he said: ‘ My Lord, you try, by 
facilitating transportation, to reduce the price of 
articles of consumption, in order to bring them 
within the reach of the people; and todo this you 
begin by making them lose all the labor which was 
created by the destruction of the canal. Sire, in 
political economy, absolute cheapness’ — 

The Emperor. “I believe that you are reciting 
something.” | 

Kouang. ‘That is true, and it would be more 
convenient for me to read.” | 

Having unfolded the Esprit Public, he read: “ In 
political economy the absolute cheapness of arti- 
cles of consumption is but a secondary question. 
The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of 
labor and that of the articles necessary to existence. 
The abundance of labor is the wealth of nations, 
and the best economic system is that which fur- 
nishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. 
Do not ask whether it is. better to pay four or eight 
cents cash for a cup of tea, or five or ten shillings 
for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a 
serious mind. No one denies your proposition. 
The question is, whether it is better to pay more 
for an article, and to have, through the abundance 
and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or 


240 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


whether it is better to impoverish the sources of 
labor, to diminish the mass of national production, 
and to transport articles of consumption by canals, 
more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to 
deprive a portion of our laborers of the power to 
buy them, even at these reduced prices.” 

The Emperor not being altogether convinced, 
Kouang said to him: “My Lord, be pleased to 
wait. I have the Moniteur Industriel to quote 
from.” | 

But the’ Emperor said: “I do not need your . 
Chinese newspapers to tell me that to create .obsta- 
cles is to turn labor in that direction. Yet that is 
not my mission. Come, let us clear out the canal, 
and then we will reform the tariff” 

Kouang went away plucking out his beard, and 
crying: Oh, Fo! Oh, Pe! Oh, Le! and all the 
monosyllabic and circumflex gods of Cathay, take 
pity on your people; for there has come to us an 
Emperor of the Mnglish school, and I see very 
plainly that, in a little while, we shall be in want 
of everything, since it will not be necessary for us 
to do anything! 


' POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. 241 


VU 
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. 


“ AFTER this, therefore on account of this.” The 
most common and the most false of arguments. 

Real suffering exists in England. 

This occurrence follows two others: 

First. The reduction of the tariff. 

Second. The loss of two consecutive harvests. 
_ Yo which of these last two sircumstances is the 
first to be attributed ? 

The protectionists do not fail to exclaim: “It is 
- this cursed freedom which does all the mischief. 
It promised us wonders and marvels; we welcomed 
it, and now the manufactories stop and the people 
suffer.” 

Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uni- 
form and equitable manner, the fruits which Provi- 
dence grants to the labor of man. If these fruits 
are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none 
the less looks after the fair distribution. of what 
remains. Men are not as well provided for, of 
course, but shall we blame freedom or the bad 
harvest ? 

Freedom rests on the same principle as insurance. 
When a loss happens, it divides, among a great 
many people, and a great number of years, evils 

22 ; 


242 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


which without it would accumulate on one nation ~ 
and one season. But have they ever thought of 
' saying that fire was no longer.a scourge, since there 
were insurance companies? 

In 1842, ’43 and ’44, the reduction of taxes 
began in England. At the same time the harvests 
were very abundant, and we can justly believe that 
these two circumstances had much to do with the 
wonderful prosperity shown by that country during 
that period. 

In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was 
still worse. Breadstuffs grew dear, the people spent 
their money for food, and used less of other articles. 
There was a diminished demand for clothing; the 
manufactories were not so busy, and wages showed 
a declining tendency. Happily, in the same year, 
the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an 
enormous quantity of food was erabled to reach 
the English market. If it had not been for this, 
it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would 
now fill Great Britain with blood. 

Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, 
which it prevents and remedies, at least in part. 

A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would 
touch what he had contaminated. Compelled to do 
everything for himself, he dragged out a miserable 
existence. A great physician cured him. Here 
was our hermit in full possession of the freedom of 
exchange. Whava beautiful prospect opened before 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 243 


him! He took pleasure in calculating the advan- 
tages, which, thanks to his connection with other 
men, he could draw from his vigorous arms. Un- 
luckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate 
was most miserable. The journalists of that 
country, witnessing his misfortune, said: “See to 
what misery this ability to exchange has reduced 
him! Really, he was less to be pitied when he 
lived alone.” 

“What!” said the physician; ‘“ do not you con- 
sider his two broken arms? Do not they forma 
part of hissad destiny? His misfortune is to have 
lost his arms, and not to have been cured of lep- 
rosy. He would be much more to be pitied if he 
was both maimed and a leper.” 7 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; do not trust this 
sophism. 


IX. 
ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 


THEY find my little book of Sophisms too theorcti- 
eal, scientific, and metaphysical. Very well. Let 
us try a trivial, commonplace, and, if necessary, 
coarse style. Convinced that the public is duped 


244 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


in the matter of protection, I have desired to prove 
it. But the public wishes to be shouted at. Then 
let us cry out: 

“ Midas, King Midas, has asses’ ears |” 

An outburst of frankness often accomplishes 
- more than the politest cireumlocution. 

To tell the truth, my good people, they are robbing 
you. Itis harsh, but it is true. 

The words robbery, to rob, robber, will seem in very 
bad taste to many people. I say to them as Har- 
pagon did to Hlise, Is it the word or the thing that 
alarms you? 

Whover has fraudulently taken that which does 
not belong to him, is guilty of robbery. (Penal 
Code, Art. 379.) 

To rob: To take ae or by force. (Dietion- 
ary of the Academy.) 

Ltobber : He who takes more than his due. (Zhe 
same.) 

Now, does not the monopolist, who, by a law of 
his own making, obliges me to pay him twenty 
francs for an article which I can get elsewhere for 
fifteen, take from me fraudulently five francs, 
which belong to me? 

Does he not take it furtively, or by force ? 

Does he not require of me more than his due? 

He carries off, he takes, he demands, they will 
say, but not furtively or by force, which are the 
characteristics of robbery. — 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. = eS 


When our tax levy is burdened with five francs 
for the bounty which this monopolist carries off, 
takes, or demands, what can be more furtive, since. 
so few of us suspect it? And for those who are 
not deceived, what can be more /orced, since, at the 
first refusal to pay, the officer is at our doors? 

Still, let the monopolists reassure themselves. 
These robberies, by means of bounties or tariffs, 
even if they do violate equity as much as robbery, 
do not break the law; on the contrary, they are 
perpetrated through the law. “’hey are all the 
worse for this, but they have nothing to do with 
criminal justice. 

Besides, willy-nilly, we are all robbers and robbed 
in the business. Though the author of this book 
erles stop thief, when he buys, others can cry the 
same after him, when he sells. If he differs from 
many of his countrymen, it. is only in this: he 
knows that he loses by this game more than he 
gains, and they do not; if they did know it, the 
game would soon cease. 

Nor do I boast of having first given this thing 
its true name. More than sixty years ago, Adam 
‘Smith said : | : 

«When manufacturers meet it may be expected 
that a conspiracy will be planned against the pock- 
ets of the public.” Can we be astonished at this 
when the public pay no otuentica to it? 

An assembly of maina@eciurers dolilerate offi- 


246 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


cially under the name of Jndustrial League. What 
goes on there, and what is decided upon ? 

I give a very brief summary of the proceedings 
of one meeting: 

“A Ship-builder. Our mercantile marine is at 
the last gasp (warlike digression). Itis not surpris- 
ing. I cannot build without iron. I can get it 
at ten francs in the world’s market; but, through 
the law, the managers of the French forges compel 
me to pay them fifteen francs. Thus they take 
five francs from me. Iask freedom to buy where 
I please. 

“ An Iron Manufacturer. Jn the world’s market I 
can obtain transportation for twenty francs. The 
ship-builder, through the law, requires thirty. Thus 
he takes ten francs from me. He plunders me; I 
plunder him. It is all-for the best. 

‘A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship- 
builder's argument is highly imprudent. Oh, let 
us cultivate the touching union which makes our 
strength ; if we relax an iota from the theory of 
protection, good-bye to the whole of it. | 

“The Ship-builder. But, for us, protection is a 
failure. I repeat that the shipping is nearly gone. 

“A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discrimi- 
nating duties against goods imported in foreign bot- 
toms, and let the ship-builder, who now takes thirty 
francs from the public, hereafter take forty. 

“A Minister. The government will push to ite 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 947 


extreme limits the admirable mechanism of these 
discriminating duties, but I fear that it will not 
answer the purpose. 

“ A Government Employe. You seem to be 
bothered about a very little matter. Is there any 
safety but in the bounty? If the consumer is will- 
ing, the tax-payer is no less so. » Let us pile on the 
taxes, and let the ship-builder be satisfied. I pro- 
pose a bounty of five francs, to be taken from the 
public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for 
each quintal of iron that he uses. 

“Several Voices. Seconded, seconded. 

“A Farmer. I want a bounty of three francs” 
for each bushel of wheat. 

“A Weaver. And I two franes for each yard of 
cloth. 

“The Presiding Officer. That is understood. 
Our meeting will have originated the system of 
drawbacks, and it will be its eternal glory. What 
branch of manufacturing can lose hereafter, when 
we have two so simple means of turning losses into 
gains—the darif and drawbacks. The meeting is 
adjourned.” 

Some supernatural vision must have shown me 
ina dream the coming appearance of the bounty 
(who knows if-I did not suggest the thought to M. 
Dupin?), when some months ago I wrote the fol- 
lowing words: 

“Tt seems evident to me that protection, without 


248 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


changing its nature or effects, might take the form 
of a direct tax levied by the State, and distributed 
in indemnifying bounties to privileged manu- 
facturers.” 

And after haying. compared protective duties 
with the bounty : | 

“T frankly avow my preference for the latter 
system ; it seems to me more just, more economical, 
and more truthful. More just, because if society 
wishes to give gratuities to some of its members, 
all should contribute; more economical, because it 
would save much of the expense of collection, 
and do away with many obstacles; and, finally, 
more truthful, because the public could see the 
operation plainly, and would know what was done.” 

Since the opportunity is so kindly offered us, let 
us study this robbery by bounties. What is said of 
it will also apply to robbery by tariff, and as it is a 
little better disguised, the direct will enable us to_ 
understand the indirect, cheating. Thus the mind 
proceeds from the simple to the complex. 

But is there no simpler variety of robbery? Cer: 
tainly, there is highway robbery, and all it needs is 
to be legalized, or, as they say now-a-days, organized. 

I once read the following in somebody’s travels : 

“When we reached the Kingdom.of A—— we 
found all industrial pursuits suffering. Agriculture 
groaned, manufactures complained, commerce mur- 
mured, the navy growled, and. the government did 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 249 


not know whom to listen to. At first it thought 
of taxing all the discontented, and of dividing 
among them the proceeds of these taxes after hav- 
ing taken its share; which would have been lke 
the method of managing lotteries in our dear Spain. 
There are a thousand of you; the State takes a 
dollar from each one, cunningly steals two hundred 
and fifty, and then divides up seven hundred and 
fifty, in greater or smaller sums, among the players. 
The worthy Hidalgo, who has received three-quar- 
ters of a dollar, forgetting that he has spent a 
whole one, is wild with joy, and runs to spend his 
shillings at the tavern. Something like this once 
happened in France. Barbarous as the country of 
A was, however, the government did not trust 
the stupidity of the inhabitants enough to make 
them accept such’singular protection, and hence 
this was what it devised : 

“The country was intersected with roads). The 
government had them measured, exactly, and then 
‘said to the farmers, ‘All that you can steal from 
travelers between these boundaries is yours; let it 
serve you as a bounty, a protection, and an encour- 
agement.’ It afterwards assigned to each manufac- 
turer and each ship-builder, a bit of road to work 
up, according to this formula: 

Dono tibi et concedo, 
Virtutem et puissantiam, 


Robbandi, 
23 


250 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Pillageandi, 
Stealandi, 
Cheatandi, 

Et Swindlandi, 

Impune per totam istam, 

Viam. 

‘‘ Now it has come to pass that the natives of the 
Kingdom of A are so familiarized with this 
regime, and so accustomed to think only of what 
they steal, and not of what is stolen from them, so 
habituated to look at pillage but from the pillager’s 
point of view, that they consider the sum of all 
these private robberies as a national profit, and 
refuse to give up a system of protection without 
which, they say, no branch of industry can live.” 

Do you say, it is not possible that an entire 
nation could see an znecrease of riches where the 
inhabitants plundered one another ? 

Why not? We have this belief in France, and 
every day we organize and practice reciprocal rob- 
bery under the name of bounties and protective 
tariffs. 

Let us exaggerate nothing, however; let us con- 
cede that as far as the mode of collection, and the 
collateral circumstances, are concerned, the system 
in the Kingdom of A may be worse than ours; 
but let us say, also, that as far as principles and 
necessary results are concerned, tkere is not an 
atom of difference between these two kinds of 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 951 


robbery legally organized to eke out the profits of 
industry. | 

Observe, that if highway robbery presents some 
difficulties of execution, it has also certain advan- 
tages which are not found in the tarif robbery. 

For instance: An equitable division can be 
made between all the plunderers. It is not thus 
with tariffs. They are by nature impotent to pro- 
tect certain classes of society, such as artizans, 
merchants, literary men, lawyers, soldiers, etc., etc. 

It is true that bounty robbery allows of infinite 
subdivisions, and in this respect does not yield in 
perfection to highway robbery, but on the other hand 
it often leads to results which are so odd and fool- - 
ish, that the natives of the Kingdom of A may 
laugh at it with great reason. 

That which the plundered party loses in highway 
robbery is gained by the robber. ‘The article stolen 
remains, at least, in the country. But under the 
dominion of bounty robbery, that which the duty 
takes from the French is often given to the Chinese, 
the Hottentots, Caffirs, and Algonquins, as follows: 

A piece of cloth is worth a hundred francs at 
Bordeaux. It is impossible to sell it below that 
without loss. It is impossible to sell it for more 
than that, for the competition between merchants 
forbids. Under these circumstances, if a French- 
man desires to buy the cloth, he must pay a 
hundred francs, ox do without it. But if an English. 


2he SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


man comes, the government interferes, and says to 
the merchant: “Sell your cloth, and I will make 
the tax-payers give you twenty francs (through the 
operation of the drawback)... The mérchant, who 
wants, and can get, but one hundred franes for his _ 
cloth, delivers it to the Englishman for eighty 
francs. This sum added to the twenty francs, the 
product of the bounty robbery, makes up his price. 
It is then precisely as if the tax-payers had given 
twenty francs to the Englishman, on condition that 
he would. buy French cloth at twenty francs below 
the cost of manufacture,—at twenty francs below 
what it costs us) Then bounty robbery has this 
peculiarity, that the robbed are inhabitants.of the 
country which allows it, and the robbers are spread 
over the face of the globe. 

It is truly wonderful that they should persist-in 
holding this proposition to have been demonstrated : 
All that the individual robs from the mass is a general . 
gain. Perpetual motion, the philosopher’s stone, 
and the squaring of the circle, are sunk in oblivion; 
but the theory of progress by robbery is still held in 
honor. A priori, however, one might have sup- 
posed that it would be the shortest lived’ of all 
these follies. 

Some say to us: You are, then, partisans of the 
let alone policy? economists of the superannuated 
school of the Smiths and the Says? You do not 
desire the organzzation of labor? Why, gentlemen, 


ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 2538 


organize labor as much as you please, but we will 
watch to see that you do not organize robbery. 

Others say, bounties, tariffs, all these things may 
have been overdone. We must use, without abus- 
ing them. A wise liberty, combined with moderate 
protection, is what serious and practical men claim. ° 
Let us beware of absolute principles. This is exactly 
what they said in the Kingdom of A——, accord- 
ing to the Spanish traveler. -“ Highway robbery,” 
said the wise men, ‘‘is neither good nor bad in itself; 
it depends on circumstances. Perhaps too much 
freedom of pillage has been given; perhaps not 
enough. Let us see; let. us examine; let us bal- 
ance the accounts of each. robber. ‘Tio those who | 
do not make enough, we will give a little more road: 
to work up. As for those who make too much, we 
will reduce their share.” | 

Those who spoke thus acquired great fame for 
moderation, prudence, and wisdom. ‘They never 
failed to attain the highest offices of the State. 

As for those who said, “ Let us repress injustice 
altogether; let us allow neither robbery, nor half 
robbery, nor quarter robbery,” they passed for theo- 
rists, dreamers, bores—always parroting the same 
thing. The people also found their reasoning too 
easy to understand. How can that be true which 
is so very simple? 


4M 254. SOPHISMS OF PRCTECTION. 


Xx. 
THE TAX COLLECTOR. 


JACQUES BoNHOMME, Vine-grower. 

M. Lasoucue, Tax Collector. 

L. You have secured twenty hogsheads of 
wine ? 

J. Yes, with much care and sweat. 

—Be so kind as to give me six of the best. 

—Six hogsheads out of twenty! Good heavens! 
You want to ruinme. If you please, what do you 
propose to do with them ? 

—The first will be given to the creditors of the 
State. When one has debts, the least one can fo 
is to pay the interest. 

—Where did the principal go? 

—It would take too long to tell. <A part of it 
was once upon a time put in cartridges, which made 
the finest smoke in the world; with another part 
men were hired who were maimed on foreign 
ground, after having ravaged it. Then, when these 
expenses brought the enemy upon us, he would not 
leave without taking money with him, which we 
had to borrow. 

- —What good do I get from it now? 

-—The satisfaction of saying : 

How proud am I of being a Frenchman 
When I behold the triumphal column, 


THE TAX COLLECTOR. 258 
And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an 
estate burdened with a perpetual rent. Still one 
must pay what he owes, no matter how foolish a 
use may have been made of the money. That 
accounts for one hogshead, but the five others ? 

—One is required to pay for public services, the 
civil list, the judges who decree the restitution of 
the bit of land your neighbor wants to appropriate, 
the policemen who drive away robbers while you 
sleep, the men who repair the road leading to the 
city, the priest who baptizes your children, the 
teacher who educates them, and myself, your ser- 
vant, who does not work for nothing. 

—Certainly, service for service. There is noth- 
ing to say against that. I had rather make a bar- 
gain directly with my priest, but I do not insist on 
this So much for the second hogshead. This 
leaves four, however. 

—Do you believe that two would be too much 
for your share of the army and navy expenses? 

—Alas, it is little compared with what they have 
cost me already. They have taken from me two 
sons whom I tenderly loved. 

—The balance of power in Europe must be 
maintained. 

—Well, my God! the balance of power would 
be the same if these forces were everywhere reduced 
a half or three-quarters.) We should save our 
children and our money All that is needed is to 
understand it. 


256 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—Yes, but they do not understand it., 

—That is what amazes me. Jor every one suf: 
fers from it. 

—You wished it so, Jacques Bonhomme. 

—You are jesting, my dear Mr. Collector; have 
I a vote in the legislative halls ? 

—Whom did you support for Deputy ? 

—An excellent General, who will be a Marshal 
presently, if God spares his life. 

—On what does this excellent General live ? 

—My hogsheads, I presume. 

—And what would happen were he to vote for a 
reduction of the army and your military establish- 
ment ? 

—Instead of being red a Marshal, he would be 
retired. 

—Do you now understand that yourself ? 

—Let us pass to the fifth hogshead, I beg of you. 

—That goes to Algeria. 

—To Algeria! And they tell me that all Mus- 
sulmans are temperance people, the barbarians! 
What services will they give me in exchange for 
this ambrosia, which has cost me so much labor ? 

—None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, 
but for good Oheeeare who eras their days in 
Barbary. 

—What.can they do there which will be of ser- 
vice to me? 

—Undertake and undergo raids; kill and be 


THE TAX COLLECTOR. 257 


killed ; get dysenteries and come home to be doc- 
tored ; dig harbors, make roads, build villages and 
people them with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards and 
Swiss, who live on your hogshead, and many others 
which I shall come in the future to ask of you. 

—Mercy! This is too much, and I flatly refuse 
you my hogshead. They would send a wine- 
grower who did such foolish acts to the mad-house. 
Make roads in the Atlas Mountains, when I cannot 
get out of my own house! Dig ports in Barbary 
when the Garonne fills up with sand every day! 
Take from me my children whom I love, in order 
to torment Arabs!. Make me pay for the houses, 
grain and horses, given to the Greeks and Maltese, — 
when there are so many poor around us! 

—The poor! Exactly; they free the country 
of this superflucty. ; 

—Oh, yes, by sending after them to Algeria the 
money which would enable them to live here. 

—But then you lay the basis of a great empire, 
you carry cevelzation into Africa, and you crown 
your country with immortal glory. 

—You area poet, my dear Collector; but Iam 
a vine-grower, and I refuse. 

—Think that in a few thousand years you will 
get back your advances a hundred fold. _ Al! those 
who have charge of the enterprise say so. 

— At first they asked me for one barrel »f wine 


958 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


to meet expenses, then two, then three, and now I 
am taxed a hogshead. I persist in my refusal. 

—Itis too late. Your representative has agreed 
that you shall give a hogshead. 

—That is but too true. Cursed weakness! It 
seems to me that I was unwise in making him my 
agent; for what is there in common between the 
General of an army and the poor owner of a vine- 
yard ? 

—You see well that there is something in com: 
mon between you, were it only the wine you make, 
and which, in your name, he votes to himself 

—Laugh at me; I deserve it, my dear Collector. 
But be reasonable, and leave me the sixth hogshead 
at least. The interest of the debt is paid, the civil 
list provided for, the public service assured, and the 
war in Africa perpetuated. What more do you want? 

—The bargain is not made with me. You must 
tell your desires to the General. He has disposed 
of your vintage. 

—But what do you propose to do with this poor 
hogshead, the. flower of my flock? Come, taste this 
wine. How mellow, delicate, velvety it is! 

—ITixcellent, delicious! It will suii D——, the 
cloth manufacturer, admirably. 

—D , the manufacturer! What do you mean? 

—That he will make a good bargain out of it. 

---How? What is that? Ido not understand 
young: 


THE TAX COLLECTOR. 259 


—Do you not know that D has started a 
magnificent establishment very useful to the coun- 
try, but which loses much money every year? 

—I am very sorry. But what can Ido to help 
him ? 

—The Legislature saw that if things went on. 
thus, D would either have to do a better busi- 
ness or close his manufactory. 

—But what connection is there between D——’s 
bad speculations and my hogshead ? 

—The Chamber thought that if it gave D 
little wine from your cellar, a few bushels of grain 
taken from your neighbors, and a few pennies cut 
from the wages of the workingmen, his losses would _ 
change into profits. 

—This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. 
But it is shockingly unjust. What! is D to 
cover his losses by taking my wine? 

—Not exactly the wine, but the proceeds of it. 
That 1s what we call a bounty for encouragement. 
But youlook amazed! Do not yousee what a great 
service you render to the country ? 

—You mean to say to D ? 

—T’o the country. D asserts that, thanks to 
this arrangement, his business prospers, and thus it 
is, says he, that the country grows rich. That is 
what he recently said in the Chamber of which he 
is a member. 


—It isa damnable fraud! What! A fool goes 


260 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


into a silly enterprise, he spends his money, and if 
he extorts from me wine or grain enough to make 
good his losses, and even to make him a profit, he 
ealls it a general gain! | 

—Your representative having come to that conclu- 

sion, all you have to do is to give me the six hogs- 
heads of wine, and sell the fourteen that I leave 
you for as much as possible. | 

—That is my business. 

—For, you see, it would be very annoying if you 
did not get a good price for them. 

—I will think of it. 

—For there are many things which the money 
you receive must procure. | 

—I know it, sir. I know it. 

—In the first place, if you buy iron to renew 
your spades and plowshares, a law declares that 
you must pay the iron-master twice what it was 
worth. 

—Ah, yes; does not the same thing happae in 
the Black Forest ? 

—Then, if you need oil, meat, cloth, coal, wool 
and sugar, each one by the law will cost you twice 
what it is worth. 

—But this is horrible, frightful, nbpatatael 

—What is the use of these hand words? You 
yourself, through your authorized agent 

—tLeave me alone with my authorized agent. I 
made a very strange disposition of my vote, it is 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. 261 


true. But they shall deceive me no more, and I 
will be represented by some good and _ honest 
countryman. | 

—Bah, you will re-elect the worthy General. 

—I? I re-elect the General to give away my 
wine to Africans and manufacturers ? 

—You will re-elect him, I say. 

—That is a little too much. I will not re-elect 
him, if I do not want to. 

—But you will want to, and you will -re-elect 
him. 

—Let him come here and try. He will see who 
he will have to settle with. : 

—We shall see. Good bye. I take away your 
six hogsheads, and will proceed to divide them as 
the General has directed. 


XT. 
UTOPIAN IDEAS. 


Ir I were His Majesty’s Minister ! 

—Well, what would you do? 
_—I should begin by—by—upon my word, by 
being very much embarrassed. For I should be 
Minister only because I -had the majority, and I 
should have that only because I had made it, and I 


262 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


could only have made it, honestly at least, by gov- 
erning according to its ideas. So if I undertake to 
carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, 
I shall not have the majority, and if I do not, I 
cannot be His Majesty’s Minister. 

—Just imagine that you are so, and that conse- 
quently the majority is not opposed to you, what 
would you do? 

—I would look to see on which side justice is. 

—And then? 

—I would seek to find where utility was. 

—What next? 

—I would see whether they agreed, or were in 
conflict with one another. 

—And if you found they did not Staion 

—I would say to the King, take ea your port- 


folio. 
—But suppose you see that justice and utility 


are one? 
—Then I will gs straight ahead. 
—Very well, but to realize utility by justice, a 
third thing is necessary. 
— What is that? 
—Possibility. 
—You conceded that. 
—When? 
—Just now 
—How? 
—By giving me the majority. 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. 263 


—It seems to me that the concession was rather 
hazardous, for it implies that the majority clearly 
sees what is just, clearly sees what is useful, and 
clearly sees that these things are in perfect accord. 

—And if it sees this clearly, the good will, so to 
speak, do itself 

—This is the point to which you are constantly 
bringing me—to see a possibility of reform only in 
the progress of the general intelligence. 

—By this progress all reform is infallible. 

—Certainly. But this preliminary progress takes 
time. Let us suppose it accomplished. What will 
you do? for lam eager to see you at work, doing, 
practicing. 

—I should begin by reducing letter postage to 
ten centimes. 

—I heard you speak of five, once. 

—Yes; but as I have other reforms in view, I 
must move with prudence, to avoid a deficit in the 
revenues. 

—Prudence? This leaves you with a deficit of 
thirty millions. 

—Then I will reduce the ale tax to ten francs. 

—Good! Here is another deficit of thirty mil- 
lions. Doubtless you have invented some new 
tax. 

—Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter 
myself that I have an inventive mind. 

_ —Itis necessary, however. Oh, I have it. What 


264 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


was I thinking of? You are simply going to 
diminish the expense. I did not think of that. 

—You are not the only one. I shall come to 
that; but I do not count on it at present. 

—What! you diminish the receipts, without les- 
sening expenses, and you avoid a deficit ? 

—Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same 
time. 

(Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger 
of his right hand on his forehead, shook his head, 
which may be translated thus: He is rambling 
terribly.) 

—Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay 
the Treasury a hundred francs; you relieve me of 
five francs on salt, five on postage; and in order 
that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one 
hundred francs, you relieve me of ten on some 
other tax ? 

—Precisely ; you understand me. 

—How can it be true? Iam not even sure that 
I have heard you. 

—1I repeat that I balance one remission of taxes 
by another. 

—I have alittle time to give, and I should like to 
hear you expound this paradox. 

—Here is the whole mystery: I know a tax 
which costs you twenty francs, not a sou of which 
gets to the Treasury. I relieve you of half of it, 
and make the other half take its proper destination. 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. ; 265. 


—You are an unequaled financier. -There: is 
but one difficulty. What tax, if you please, do I 
pay, which does not go to the Treasury ? 

—How much does this suit of clothes cost you? 

—A hundred frances. 

—How much would it have cost you if you had 
gotten the cloth from Belgium? 

—Highty franes. 

—T'hen why did you not get it there ? 

—Because it is prohibited. 

—Why? ; 

—So that the suit may cost me one hundred 
francs instead of eighty. 

—This denial, then, costs you twenty francs ? 

eo Wndoulvedinn 

—And where do these twenty francs go? 

—Where do they go? To the manufacturer of 
the cloth. 

—Well, give me ten frances for the Treasury, and 
I will remove the eueee and you will gain ten 
francs. | 

—Oh, I begin to see. The treasury: account 
shows that it loses five francs on postage and five 
on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That is even. 

—Your account is—you gain five francs on salt, 

five on postage, and ten on cloth. 
 —Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory 
enough. But what becomes of the poor eloth mans 


ufacturer ? 
24 


y 


266 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured 
compensation for him by means of the tax reduc- 
tions which are so profitable to the Treasury. 
What I have done for you as regards cloth, I do 
for him in regard to wool, coal, machinery, etc., so 
that he can lower his price without loss, 

—But are you sure that will be an equivalent? 

—The balance will be in his favor. The twenty 
francs that you gain on the cloth will be multiplied 
by those which I will save for you on grain, meat, 
fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and 
each one of your 385,000,000 fellow-citizens will 
save the same way. ‘There will be enough to con- 
sume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The 
nation will be better clothed ; that is all. 

—TI will think on this, for it is somewhat con- 
fused in my head. 

—After all, as far as clothes go, the main thing 
is to be clothed. Your limbs are your own, and 
not the manufacturer's. ‘T'o shield them from cold 
is your business and not his. If the law takes 
sides for him against you, the law is unjust, and 
you allowed me to reason on the hypothesis that 
what is unjust is hurtful. 

—Perhaps I admitted too much; but go en and 
explain your financial plan. 

—Then I will make a tariff. 

—In two folio volumes ? 

—No, in two sections, 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. 267 


—Then they will no longer say that this famous 
axiom “ No one is supposed to be ignorant of the 
law” is a fiction. Let us see your tariff. 

—Here it is: Section First. All imports shall 
pay an ad valorem tax of five per cent. 

—Hven raw materials ? 

—Unless they are worthless. 

—But they all have value, much or little. 

—Then they will pay much or little. 

—How can our manufactories compete with 
foreign ones which have these raw materials free ? 

—The expenses of the State being certain, if we 
close this source of revenue, we must open another ; 
this will not diminish the relative inferiority of 
our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more 
to organize and pay. 

—That is true; I reasoned as if the tax was to 
be annulled, not changed. I will reflect on this. 
What is your second section ? 

—Section Second. All exports shall pay an ad 
valorem tax of five per cent. 

—Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will 
certainly be stoned, and, if it comes to that, I will 
throw the first one. 

—We agreed that the majority were enlightened. 

—KHnlightened! Can you claim that an export 
duty is not onerous ? | 

—All taxes are onerous, but this is less so than 
others. — 


268 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Be 
so kind as to make this new paradox appear 
specious, if you can. 

—How much did you pay for this wine? 

—A franc per.quart.. 

—How much would you have paid outside the 
city gates? 

—Tifty centimes. 

—Why this difference ? 

—Ask the octroi* which added ten sous to it. 

—Who established the octroz ? 

—The municipality of Paris, in order to pave 
and light the streets. 

—This is, then, an import duty. But if the neigh- 
boring country districts had established this octrot 
for their profit, what would happen ? 

—I should none the less pay a franc for wine 
worth only fifty centimes, and the other fifty cen- 
times would pave and light Montmartre and the 
Batignolles. 

-——So that really it is the consumer who pays the 
tax? 

—There is no doubt of that. 

—Then by taxing exports you make foreigners 
help pay your expenses.t 


* The entrance duty levied at the gates of French towns. 


+ I understand M. Bastiat tomean merely that export duties are not 
necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement that all taxes 
are paid by the consumer, is liable to important modifications. An export 
duty may be laid in such way, and on such articles, that it will be paid 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. 269 


—TI find you at fau.t, this is not justice. : 

—Why not? In order to secure the production of 
any one thing, there must be instruction, security, 
roads, and other costly things in the country. Why 
shall not the foreigner who is to consume this pro- 
duct, bear the charges its production necessitates ? 

—This is contrary to received ideas. 

—Not the least in the world. The last purchaser 
must repay all the direct and indirect expenses of 
production. | 

—No matter what you say, it is plain that such 
a measure would paralyze commerce, and cut off all 
exports. 

—That is an illusion. If you were to pay this 
tax besides all the others, you would be right. 
But, if the hundred millions raised in this way, 
relieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you 
go into foreign markets with all your advantages, 
and even with more, if this duty has occasioned less 
embarrassment and expense. 

—I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage 
and customs are regulated. Is all ended there? 

—[ am just beginning. 

—Pray, initiate me in your Utopian ideas. 

—I have lost sixty millions on salt and postage. 
I shall regain them through the customs; which 
also gives me something more precious. 
wholly by the foreign sonsumer, without loss to the producing country, but 


it is only when the additional cost does not lessen the demand, or induce 
the foreigner to produce the same article, Translator. 


270 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—What, pray ? 

—International relations founded on justice, and 
a probability of peace which is equivalent to a cer- 
tainty. I will disband the army. 

—The whole army? 

—Except special branches, which will be volun- 
tarily recruited, like all other professions. You see, 
conscription is abolished. 

—Si, you should say recruiting. 

—Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease 
with which, in certain countries, the most unpopu- 
lar things are perpetuated by giving them other 
names. . 

—like consolidated duties, which have become 
endirect contributions. 

—And the gendarmes, who have taken the name 
of municipal guards. 

—In short, trusting to Utopia, you disarm the 
country. 

—I said that I would muster out the army, not 
that I would disarm the country. I intend, on the 
contrary, to give it invincible power. 

—How do you harmonize this mass of contradie- 
tions ? 

—lI call all the citizens to service. : 

—Is it worth while to relieve a portion from 
service in order to call out everybody ? 

—You did not make me Minister in order that I 
should leave things as they are. Thus, on my 


UTOPIAN IDEAS. 271 


advent to power, I shall say with Richelieu, “the 
State maxims are changed.” My first maxim, the 
one which will serve as a basis for my administra- 
tion, is this: Every citizen must know two things 
—How to earn his own living, and defend his 
country. . 

—It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is 
a spark of good sense in this. 

—Consequently, I base the national defense on a 
law consisting of two sections. 

Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, with- 
out exception, shall be under arms for four years, 
from his twenty-first to his twenty-fifth year, in 
order to receive military instruction— | 

—This is pretty economy! You send home 
four hundred thousand soldiers and call out ten 
millions. 

—Listen to my second section : 

SEC. 2. Unless he proves, at the age of twenty- 
one, that he knows the school of the soldier | 
perfectly. 

—I did not expect this turn. It is certain that 
to avoid four years’ service, there will be a great 
emulation among our youth, to learn by the right 
jlank and double quick, march. 'The idea is odd. 

—It is better than that. For without grieving 
families and offending equality, does it not assure 
the country, in a simple and inexpensive manner, of 
ten million defenders, capable of defying a coalition 
of all the standing armies of the globe? 


Zin SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should 
end in getting interested in your fancies. 

The Utopist, getting excited: Thank Heaven, my 
estimates are relieved of a hundred millions! I 
suppress the octrov. I refund indirect contributions. 

Getting more and more excited: I will proclaim 
religious freedom and free instruction. There shall 

“be new resources. I will buy the railroads, pay off 
the public debt, and starve out the stock gamblers. 

—My dear Utopist ! 

—TFreed from too numerous cares, I will concen- 
trate all the resources of the government on the 
repression of fraud, the administration of prompt 
and even-handed justice. I— 

—My dear Utopist, you attempt too much. The 
nation will not follow you. 

—You gave me the majority. 

—I take it back. 

—Very well; then I am no longer Minister; but 
my plans remain what they are—Utopian ideas, 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 273 


XII. 
SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS. 


[THs chapter is an amusing dialogue relating 
principally to English Postal Reform. Being inap- 
plicable to any condition of things existing in the 
United States, it is omitted.— Translator. | 


XII 
THE THREE ALDERMEN, 


A DEMONSTRATION IN FOUR TABLEAUX. 
First Tableau. 


[The scene is in the hotel of Alderman Pierre. 
The window looks out ona fine park; three per- 
sons are seated near a good fire. | 

Perre. Upon my word, a fire is very comforta- 
ble when the stomach is satisfied. It must be 
agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas! how 
many worthy people like the King of Yvetot, 


‘* Blow on their fingers for want of wood.’ 


Unhappy creatures, Heaven inspires me witha 
charitable thought. You see these, fine trees I 


274 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


will cut them down and distribute the wood among 
the poor. 

Paul and Jean. What! gratis? 

Pierre. Not exactly. There would soon be an 
end of my good works if I scattered my property 
thus. I think that my park is worth twenty thou- 
sand livres; by cutting it down I shall get much 
more for it. 

Paul. A mistake. Your wood as it stands is ~ 
worth more than that in the neighboring forests, 
for it renders services which that cannot give, 
When cut down it will, like that, be good for burn- 
ing only, and will not be worth a sou more per 
cord. i 

Prerre. Oh! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am 
a practical man. I supposed that my reputation as 
a speculator was well enough established to put me 
above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that 
I shail amuse myself by selling my wood at the 
price of other wood ? 

Paul. You must. 

Pierre. Simpleton! Suppose I prevent the 
bringing of any wood to Paris? | 

Paul. That will alter the case. But how will 
you manage it ? 

Pierre. This is the whole secret. You know that 
wood pays an entrance duty of ten sous per cord. 
T'o-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raise 
this duty to one hundred, two hundred, or three 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 275 


hundred livres, so high as to keep out every fagot. 
Well, do you see? If the good people do not: 
want to die of cold, they must come to my wood- 
yard. They will fight for my wood; I shall sell it 
for its weight in gold, and this well-regulated deed 
of charity will enable me to do others of the same 
sort. 

Paul. This is a fine idea, and it suggests an 
equally good one to me. 

Jean. Well, what is it? 

Paul. How do you find this Normandy butter? 

Jean. Excellent. 

Paul. Well, it seemed passable a moment ago. 
But do you not think it is a little strong? I want tc 
make a better article at Paris. I will have four or 
five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, but- 
ter and cheese to the poor people. 

Pierre and Jean. What! as a charity ? 

Paul. Bah, let us always put charity in the 

foreground. It is such a fine thing that its coun- 
terfeit even is an excellent card. I will give my 
hutter to the people and they will give me their 
money. Is that called selling ? . 
. dean. No, according to the Bourgeois Gentil- 
homme ; but call it what you please, you ruin your- 
self Can Paris compete with Normandy in rais- 
ing cows? 

Paul. Ishall save the cost of transportation. 

- Jean. Very well; but the Normans are able to 


276 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


beat the Parisians, even if they do have to pay for 
‘transportation. 

Paul. Do you call it beating any one to furnish © 
him things at a low price? 

Jean. It is the time-honored word. You will 
always be beaten. 

Paul. Yes; like Don Quixote. The blows will 
fall on Sancho. Jean, my friend, you forgot the 
octror. 

Jean. The octrov! What has that to do with 
your butter? | 

Paul. To-morrow I will demand protection, and 
I will induce the Council to prohibit the butter of 
Normandy and Brittany. The people must do 
without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, 
too. 

Jean. Gentlemen, your philanthrophy carries 
me along with it. ‘In time one learns to howl 
with the wolves.” It shall not be said that I am 
an unworthy Alderman. Pierre, this sparkling 
fire has illumined your soul; Paul, this butter has 
given an impulse to your understanding, and I per- 
ceive that this piece of salt pork stimulates my 
intelligence. ‘To-morrow I will vote myself, and 
-make others vote, for the exclusion of hogs, dead 
or alive; this done, I will build superb stock-yards 
in the middle of Paris “for the unclean animal 
forbidden to the Hebrews.” I will become swine- 
herd and pork-seller, and we shall see how the 


> 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 217 
good people of Lutetia can help getting their food 
at my shop. | 

Prerre. Gently, my friends; if you thus run up 
the price of butter and salt meat, you diminish the 
profit which I expected from my wood. 

Paul. Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if 
you ruin me with your fuel and your hams, 

Jean. What shall I gain by making you pay an 
extra price for my sausages, if you overcharge me 
for pastry and fagots? 

Pierre. Do you not see that we are getting into 
a quarrel? Let us rather unite. Let us make 
reciprocal concessions. Besides, it is not well to listen 
only to miserable self-interest. Humanity is con- 
cerned, and must not the warming of the people be 
secured ? 

Paul. That it is true, and people must have 
butter to spread on their bread. 

Jean. Certainly. And they must have a bit of 
pork for their soup. 

All Together. Forward, charity !_ Long live phil- 
anthrophy! ‘To-morrow, ‘to-morrow, we will take 
the octroi by assault. 

Pierre. Ah, I forgot. One word more which is 
important. My friends, in this selfish age people 
are suspicious, and the purest intentions are often 
misconstrued. Paul, you plead for wood; Jean, 
defend butter ; and I will devote myself to domestic 
swine. It is best to head off invidious suspicions. 


278 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Paul and Jean (leaving). Upon my word, what 
a clever fellow ! 


SECOND TABLEAU. 


The Common Council. 


Paul. My dear colleagues, every day great 
quantities of wood come into Paris, and draw out 
of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we 
shall all be ruined in three years, and what will 
become of the poor people? [Bravo.] Let us 
prohibit foreign wood. I am not speaking for 
myself, for you could not make a tooth-pick out of 
all the wood I own. Iam, therefore, perfectly dis- 
interested. [Good, good.] But here is Pierre, who 
has a park, and he will keep our fellow-citizens 
from freezing. ‘They will no longer be in a state 
of dependence on the charcoal dealers of the Yonne. 
Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying 
of cold, if the proprietors of these foreign forests 
should take it into their heads not to bring any more 
wood to Paris? Let us, therefore, prohibit wood. 
By this means we shall stop the drain of specie, 
we shall start the wood-chopping business, and 

open to our workmen a new source of labor and _ 
wages. [Applause.] 

Jean. I second the motion of the Honorable 
member—a proposition so philanthrophic and so 
disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that we 


HE THREE ALDERMEN. 219 


should stop this intolerable freedom of entry, which 
has brought a ruinous competition upon our mar- 
ket, so that there is not a province tolerably well 
situated for producing some one article which 
does not inundate us with it, sell it to us at a 
low price, and depress Parisian labor. It is the 
business of the State to equalize the conditions of pro- 
duction by wisely graduated duties; to allow the 
entrance from without of whatever is dearer there 
than at Paris, and thus relieve us from an unequal 
contest. How, for instance, can they expect us to 
make milk and butter in Paris as against Brittany 
and Normandy? ‘Think, gentlemen; the Bretons 
have land cheaper, feed more convenient, and labor 
more abundant. Does not common sense say that 
_ the conditions must be equalized by a protecting 
duty? lLask that the duty on milk and butter be 
raised to a thousand per cent., and more, if neces- 
sary. ‘The breakfasts of the people will cost a 
little more, but wages will rise! We shall see the 
building of stables and dairies, a good trade in 
churns, and the foundation of new industries laid, 
I, myself; have not the least interest in this plan. 
I am not a cowherd, nor do I desire to become one. 
Iam moved by the single desire to be useful to 
the laboring classes. [Expressions of approbation. ] 

Prrre. I am happy to see in this assembly 
statesmen so pure, enlightened, and devoted to the 
interests of the people. [Cheers.] J admire their 


280 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


self-denial, and cannot do better than follow such 
noble examples. I support their motion, and I also 
make one to exclude Poitou hogs. It is not that I 
want to become a swineherd or pork dealer, in 
which case my conscience would forbid my making 
this motion; but is it not shameful, gentlemen, that 
we should be paying tribute to these poor Poitevin 
peasants who have the audacity to come into our 
own market, take possession of a business that we 
could have carried on ourselves, and, after~having 

inundated us with sausages and hams, take from us, 
perhaps, nothing in return? Anyhow, who says that 
the balance of trade is not in their favor, and that 
we are not compelled to pay them a tribute in 
money? Isitnot plain that if this Poitevin indus- 
try were planted in Paris, it would open new fields 
to Parisian labor? Moreover, gentlemen, is it not 
very likely, as Mr. Lestiboudois said, that we buy 
these Poitevin salted meats, not with our income, 
but our capital? Where will this land us? Let 
us not allow greedy, avaricious and perfidious rivals 
to come here and sell things cheaply, thus making 
it impossible for us to produce them ourselves. 
Aldermen, Paris has given us its confidence, and 
we must show ourselves worthy of it. The people 
are without labor, and we must create it, and if 
salted meat costs them a little more, we shall, at 
least, have the consciousness that we have sacrificed 
our interests to those of the masses, as every good 
Alderman ought todo. [Thunders of applause.] 


a 


THE 'THREE ALDERMEN. 281 


A Voice. I hear much said of the poor people ; 
but, under the pretext of giving them labor, you 
begin by taking away from thein that which is 
worth more than labor itself—wood, butter, and 
soup. ‘aia 
Prerre, Paul and Jean. Vote, vote. Away with 
your theorists and generalizers! Let us vote. 
(‘The three motions are carried. | 


THIRD TABLEAU. 
Twenty Years After. 


Son. Father, decide; we must leave Paris. 
Work is slack, and everything is dear. 

Father. Myson, you do not know how hard it is 
to leave the place where we were born. 

Son. The worst of all things is to die there of 
misery. 

Father. Go, my son, and seek a more hospitable 
country. For myself, I will not leave the grave 
where your mother, sisters and brothers lie. I am 
eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is 


- denied me in this city of desolation. 


Son. Courage, dear father, we will find work 
elsewhere—in Poitou, Normandy or Brittany. 
They say that the industry of Paris is gradually 
transferring itself to those distant countries. 

Father. It is very natural. Unable to sell us 
wood and food, they stopped producing more than 


S 


282 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


they needed for themselves, and they devoted their 
spare time and. capital to making those things which 
we formerly furnished them. 

Son. Just as at Paris, they quit making hand- 
some furniture and fine clothes, in order to plant 
trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quite 
young, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous 
, buildings, and quays thronged with life on those 
banks of the Seine which are now given up to 
meadows and forests. 

Father. While the provinces are filling up with 
cities, Paris becomes country. What a frghtfal 
revolution!. Three mistaken Aldermen, aided by 
public ignorance, have brought down on us this 
terrible calamity. , 

Son. ‘Tell me this story, my father. 

Father. It is very simple. Under the pretext of 
establishing three new trades at Paris, and of thus 
supplying labor to the workmen, these men secured 
the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They 
assumed the right of. supplying their fellow-citizens 
with them. ‘These articles rose immediately to an 
exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy 
them, and the few who could procure them by using 
up all they made were unable to buy anything 
else; consequently all branches of industry stopped 
at once—all the more so because the provinces na 
longer offered a market. Misery, death, and emi- 
gration began to depopulate Paris. 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 283 


Son. When will this stop? 

Father. When Paris has become a meadow and 
a forest. i | 

Son. The three Aldermen must have made a 
great fortune. 

Father. At first they made immense profits, but 
at length they were involved in the common 
misery. 

Son. How was that possible? 

Father. You see this ruin; it was a magnificent 
house, surrounded by a fine park. If Paris had 
kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have got 
more rent from it annually than the whole thing is. 
now worth to him. 

Son. How can that be, since he got rid of com- 
petition ? 

Father. Competition in selling has disappeared ; 
but competition in buying also disappears every 
day, and will keep on disappearing until Paris is an 
open field, and Master Pierre’s woodland will be 
worth no more than an equal number of acres in 
the forest of Bondy. Thus, a monopoly, like every 
species of injustice, brings its own punishment 
upon itself. | 

Son. This does not seem very plain to me, but 
the decay of Paris isundeniable. Is there, then, no 
_ means of repealing this unjust measure that Pierre 
and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago? 

Iyther. I will confide my secret to you. I wili 


284 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


remain at Paris for this purpose; I will call the 
people to my aid. It depends on them whether 
they will replace the octroz on its old basis, and dis- 
miss from it this fatal principle, which is grafted on 
it, and has grown there like a parasite fungus. 

Son. You ought to succeed on the very first 
day. 

Father. No; on the contrary, the work is a dif- 
ficult and laborious one. Pierre, Paul and Jean 
understand one another perfectly. They are ready 
to do anything rather than allow the entrance of 
wood, butter and meat into Paris. They even have 
on their side the people, who clearly see the labor 
which these three protected branches of. business 
give, who know how many wood-choppers and cow- 
drivers it gives employment to, but who cannot 
obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would 
spring up in the free air of liberty. 

Son. If this is all that is needed, you will 
enlighten them. 

Father. My child, at your age, one doubts at 
nothing. If I wrote, the people would not read ; 
for all their time is occupied in supporting a 
wretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will 
shut my mouth. The people will, therefore, remain 
long in their fatal error; political parties, which 
build their hopes on their passions, attempt to play ~ 
upon their prejudices, rather than to dispel them, 
I shall then have to deal with the powers that be— 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 285 


the people and the parties. ‘I see that a storra will 
burst on the head of the audacious* person who 
dares to rise against an iniquity which is so firmly 
rooted in the country. 

Son. You will have justice and truth on your 
side. 

Father. And they will have force and calumny. 
If I were only young! But ageand suffering have 
exhausted my strength. 

Son. Well, father, devote all that you have 
left to the service of the country. Begin this work 
of emancipation, and leave to me for an inheritance 
the task of finishing it. 


FOURTH TABLEAU. 
The Agitation. 


Jacques Bonhomme. Parisians, let us demand 
the reform of the octro ; let it be put back to what 
it was. Let every citizen be FREE to buy wood, 
butter and meat where it seems good to him. 

The People. Hurrah for LIBERTY | 

Pierre. Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be 
seduced by these words. Of what avail is the 
freedom of purchasing, if you have not the means ? 
and how can you have the means, if labor is want- 
ing? Can Paris produce wood as cheaply as the 
forest of Bondy, or meat at as low price as Poitou, 
or butter as easily as Normandy? If you open the 


286 SOPHISMS )F PROTECTION. 


doors to these rival products, what will become of 
the wood cutters, pork dealers, and cattle drivers? 
They cannot do without protection. 

The People. Wurrah for PROTECTION | 

Jacques. Protection! But do they protect you, 
workmen? Do not youcompete with one another? 
Let the wood dealers then suffer competition in 
their turn. They have no right to raise the price 
of their wood by law, unless they, also, by law, 
raise wages. “Do you not still love equality ? 

The People. Hurrah for EQUALITY ! 

Pierre. Do not listen to this factious fellow. 
We have raised the price of wood, meat, and but- 
ter, itis true; but it is in order that we may give 
good wages to the workmen. We are moved by 
charity. | : 

The People. Hurrah for cHARITY ! 

Jacques. Use the octror, if you can, to raise 
wages, or do not use it to raise the price of com- 
modities. ‘The Parisians do not ask for charity, 
but justice. 

The People. Hurrah for susricx! 

Prerre. It is precisely the dearness of products 
which will, by reflex action, raise wages. 

_ The People. Hurrah for DEARNESS ! 

_ Jacques. If butter is dear, it is not because you 
pay workmen well; it is not even that you may 
make great profits; -it 1s only because Paris is ill 
situated for this business, and because you desired 


THE THREE ALDERMEN. 287 


that they should do in the city what ought to be 
done in the country, and in the country what was 
done in the city. The people have no more labor, 
only they labor at something else. They get no 
more wages, but they do not buy things as cheaply. 

The People. Hurrah for CHEAPNESS ! 

Pierre. This person seduces you with his fine 
words. Let us state the question plainly. Is it not 
true that if we admit butter, wood, and meat, we 
shall be inundated with them, and- die of a 
plethora? There is,.then, no other way in which 
we can preserve ourselves from this new inundation, 
than to shut the door, and we can.keep up the 
price of things only by causing scarcity artificially. 

A Very Few Voices. Hurrah for scarciry ! 

Jacques. Let us state the question as it is. 
Among all the Parisians we can divide only what 
is in Paris; the less wood, butter and meat there 
is, the smaller each one’s share will be. There will 
be less if we exclude than if we admit. Parisians, — 
individual abundance can exist only where there is 
general abundance. 

The People. Uurrah for ABUNDANCE! 

Pierre. No matter what this man says, he can- 
not prove to you that it is to your interest to submit 
to unbridled competition. 

The People. Down with COMPETITION ! 

Jacques. Despite all this man’s declamation, he 
cannot make you enjoy the sweets of restriction. 


288 ' SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


The People. Down with RESTRICTION | 

Pierre. I declare to you that if the poor dealers 
in cattle and hogs are deprived of their livelihood, 
if they are sacrificed to theories, I will not he 
answerable for public order. Workmen, distrust 
this man. He is an agent of perfidious Normandy ; 
he is under the pay of foreigners. He is a traitor, 
and must be hanged. [The people keep silent. ] 

Jacques. Parisians, all that I say now, I said to 

you twenty years ago, when it occurred to Pierre 
to use the octroc for his gain and your loss) Iam 
not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, 
but this will not prevent oppression from being 
oppression. Friends, you must kill neither Jacques 
nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, or 
restriction if it hurts you. 

The People. Iset us hang nobody, but let us 
emancipate every body. 


SOMETHING ELSE. 289 


XLV: 


SOMETHING ELSE, 


—WHAT is restriction ? 

—A_ partial prohibition. 

—W hat is prohibition ? 

—An absolute restriction. 

—So that what is said of one is true of the other ? 

—Yes, comparatively. They bear the same rela- 
tion to each other that the arc of the circle does to 
the circle. ; 

—Then if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot 
be good. 
--—No more than the are can be straight if the 
circle is curved. 

—What is the common name for restriction and 
prohibition ? 

—Protection. 

—W hat is the definite effect of protection ? 

—To require from men harder labor for the same 
result, 

—Why are men so attached to the protective 
system? 

—Because, since liberty would accomplish the 
same result wth less labor, this apparent diminu- 


tion of labor frightens them. 
' 26 


290 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—Why do you say apparent ? 

—Because all labor economized can be devoted 
to something else. 

—What? 

—That cannot and need not be determined. 

—Why? 

—Because, if the total of the comforts of France 
could be gained with a diminution of one-tenth on 
the total of its labor, no one could determine what 
comforts it would procure with the labor remain- 
ing at its.disposal. One ‘person would prefer to be 
better clothed, another better fed, another better 
taught, and another more amused. 

—Hxplain the workings and effect of protection. 

—It is not an easy matter. Before taking hold 
of a complicated instance, it must be studied in the 
simplest one. | 8 

—Take the simplest you choose. 

—Do you recollect how Robinson Crusoe, having 
no saw, set to work to make a plank? — 

—Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his 
ax hewed the trunk on both sides until he got it 
down to the thickness of a board. 

—And that gave him an abundance of ores 

-—Fifteen full days. 

—W hat did he live on during this time? 

—AHis provisions. 

—W hat happened to the ax? 

—It was all blunted. 


SOMETHING ELSE. 291 


—Very good; but there is one thing which, per- 
haps, you do not know. At the moment that 
Robinson gave the first blow with his ax, he saw a 
plank which the waves had cast up on the shore. 

—Oh, the lucky accident! He ran to pick it 
up? 

—It was his first impulse; but he checked him- 
self, reasoning thus: 

“Tf I go after this plank, it will cost me but the 
labor of carrying it and the time spent in going to 
and returning from the shore. 

“But if I make a plank with my ax, I shall in 
the first place obtain work for fifteen days, then I 
shall wear out my ax, which will give me an oppor- 
tunity of repairing it, and I shall consume my 
provisions, which will be a third source of labor, . 
since they must be replaced. Now, labor is wealth. 
It is plain that I will ruin myself if I pick up this 
stranded board. It is important to protect my per- 
sonal labor, and now that.I think of it, I can create 
myself. ees labor by kicking this board wee 
into the sea.” | 

-—But this reasoning was absurd ! . 

—Certainly. Nevertheless it is that adopted by 
every nation which protects itself by prohibition. 
It rejects the plank which is offered it in exchange 
for a little labor, in order to give itself more labor. 
It sees a gain even in the labor of the custom house 
officer. This answers to the trouble which Robin- 


292 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


son took to give back to the waves the present they 
wished to make him. Consider the nation a collec- 
tive being, and you will not find an atom of differ- 
ence between its reasoning and that of Robinson. 

—Did not Robinson see that he could use the 
time saved in doing something else ? 

—What ‘something else 2 

—So long as one has wants and time, one has 
always something to do. Iam not bound to specify 
the labor that he could undertake. 

—I can specify very easily that which he would 
have avoided. 

—TI assert, that Robinson, with incredible blind- 
ness, confounded labor with its result, the end 
with the means, and I will prove it to you. 

—It is not necessary. But this is the restrictive 
or prohibitory system in its simplest form. If it 
appears absurd to you, thus stated, it is because the 
two qualities of producer and consumer are here 
united in the same person. 

—Let us pass, then, to a more complicated 
instance. 

—Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson 
having met Friday, they united, and began to work 
in common. They hunted for six hours each 
morning and brought home four hampers of game. 
They worked in the garden for six hours each 
afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables. 

One day a canoe touched at the Island of De- 


‘SOMETHING ELSE. 293 


spair. A good-looking stranger landed, and was 
allowed to dine with our two hermits. He tasted, 
and praised the products of the garden, and before 
taking leave of his hosts, said to them : 

“Generous Islanders, I dwell in a country much 
richer in game than this, but where horticulture is 
unknown. It would be easy for me to bring you 
every evening four hampers of game if you would 
give me only two baskets of vegetables.” 

At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on 
one side, to have a consultation, and the debate 
which followed is too interesting not to be given 
a extenso : 

Friday. Friend, what do you think of it? 

Robinson. If we accept we are ruined. 

Friday. Is that certain? Calculate! 

Robinson. It is all calculated. Hunting, crushed 
out by competition, will be a lost branch of indus- 
try for us. 

Friday. What difference does that make, if we 
have the game? 

Robinson. Theory! It will not be the product 
of our labor. 3 

Friday. Yes, it will, since we will have to give 
vegetables to get it. 

Robinson. Then what shall we make? 

Friday. The four hampers of game cost us six 
hours’ labor. The stranger gives them to us for 
two baskets of vegetables, which take us but three 
hours. Thus three hours remain at our disposal. 


294 . SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Robinson. Say rather that they are taken from 
our activity. There is our loss. Labor is wealth, 
and if we lose a fourth of our time we are one- 
fourth poorer. 

Friday. Friend, you make an enormous mistake. 
The same amount of game and vegetables and 
three free hours to boot make progress, or there is 
aone in the world. | 

Robinson. Mere generalities. What will we do 
with these three hours ? 

Friday. We will do something else. 

Robinson. Ah,now Ihave you. You can specify 
aothing. It is very easy to say something else— 
something els. 

Friday. We will fish, We will adorn our 
houses. We will read the Bible. : 

Robinson. Utopia! Is it certain that we will do 
this rather than that? 

Friday. Well, if we have no wants, we will 
rest. Is rest nothing? 

Robinson. When one rests one dies of hunger. 

Friday. Friend, you are in a vicious circle. JT 
speak of a rest which diminishes neither our gains 
nor our vegetables. You always forget that by 
means of our comnierce with this stranger, nine 
hours of labor will give us as much food as twelve 
now do. 

Robinson. It is easy to see that you were not 
reared in Europe. Perkaps you have never read 


SOMETHING ELSE. 295. 


the Moniteur Industriel? It would. have taught 
you this: “ All time saved is a dear loss. Hating 
js not the important matter, but working. Noth- 
ing which we consume counts, if it is not the pro- 
duct of our labor. Do you wish to know whether 
you are rich? Do not look at your comforts, but 
at your trouble?” Thisis what the Monieur Jndus- 
triel would have taught you. I, who am nota theo 
rist, see but the loss of our hunting. 

Friday. What a strange perversion of ideas. 
But— 

Robinson. No buts. Besides, there are political 
reasons for rejecting the interested offers of this 
perfidious stranger. 

Friday. Political reasons ! 

Robinson. Yes. In the first place he makes 
these offers only because they are for his advantage. 

friday. So much the better, since they are for 
ours also. 

fobinson. Then by these exchanges we shall 
become dependent on him. 

Friday. And he onus. We need his game, he 
our vegetables, and we will live in good friendship. 

Robinson. Fancy! Do you want I should leave 
you without an answer? 

Friday. Let. us see; I am still waiting a good 
reason. ‘ 

fvobinson. Supposing that the stranger learns to 
cultivate a garden, and that his island is more fertile 
than ours. Do you see the consequences ? 


296 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


Friday. Yes. Our relations with the stranger 
will stop. He will take no more vegetables from 
us, since he can get them at home with less trouble. 
He will bring us no more game, since we will have 
nothing to give in exchange, and we will be then 
just where you want us to be now. 

Robinson. Short-sighted savage! You do not 
see that after having destroyed our hunting, by 
inundating us with game, he will kill our garden- 
ing by overwhelming us with vegetables. 

friday. But he will do that only so long as we 
give him something else; that is to say, so long as we 
find something else to produce, which will economize 
our labor. | 

Robinson. Something else—something else! You 
always come back to that. You are very vague, 
friend Friday; there is nothing practical in your 
views. 

The contest lasted a long time, and, as often hap- 
pens, left each one convinced that he was right. 
However, Robinson having great influence over 
Friday, his views prevailed, and when the stranger 
came for an answer, Robinson said to him: 

“Stranger, in order that your proposition may be 
accepted, we must be quite sure of two things: 

“The first is, that your island is not richer in 
game than ours, for we will struggle but with equal 
arms. 

“The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. 


SOMETHING ELSE. 297 


For, as in every exchange there is necessarily a 
gainer and a loser, we would be cheated, if you 
were not. What have youtosay?” — 

“Nothing, nothing,” replied the stranger, who 
burst out laughing, and returned to his canoe. 

—The story would not be bad if Robinson was 
not so foolish. 

—He is no more so than the committee in Haute- 
ville street. 

—Oh, there isa great difference. You suppose 
one solitary man, or, what comes to the same thing, 
two men living together. This is not our world; 
the diversity of occupations, and the intervention 
of merchants and money, change the question 
“materially. 

—All this complicates transactions, but does not 
change their nature. 

—What! Do you propose to compare modern 
commerce to mere exchanges? 

—Commerce is but a multitude of exchanges; 
the real nature of the exchange is identical with the 
real nature of commerce, as small labor is of the 
same nature with great, and as the gravitation which 
impels an atom is of the same nature as that which 
attracts a world. 

—Thus, according to you, these arguments, which 
in Robinson’s mouth are so false, are no less so in 
the mouths of our protectionists ? 

—Yes; only error is hidden better under the 


‘complication of circumstances. : 
27 


298 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—Well, now, select some instance from what has 
actually occurred. 

—Very well; in France, in view of custom and 
the exigencies of the climate, cloth is an useful 
article. Is it the essential thing to make tt, or to 
have at ? 

—A pretty question! To have it, we must 
make it. 

—That is not necessary. It is certain that to 
have it some one must make it; but it is not neces- 
sary that the person or country using it should 
make it. You did not produce that which clothes 
you so’well, nor France the coffee it uses for 
breakfast. 

—But I purchased. my cloth, and France its 
coffee. | 

—Exactly, and with what? 

—With specie. 

—But you did not make the specie, nor did 
France. 

—We bought it 

—With what ? 

—With our products which went to Peru. 

—Then it is in reality your labor that you 
exchange for cloth, and French labcr that is 
exchanged for coffee ? 

—Certainly. 

—Then it is not absolutely necessary to make 
what one consumes ? 


SOMETHING ELSE. 299 


-—No, if one makes something else, and gives it in 
exchange. | 

—In other words, France has two ways of pro- 
curing a given quantity of cloth. The first is to 
make it, and the second is to make something else, 
and exchange that something else abroad for cloth. 
Of these two ways, which is the best ? 

—I do not know. 

—Is it not that which, for a fixed amount of labor, 
— gwes the greatest quantity of cloth ? 

—It seems so. 

—Which is best for a nation, to have the choice 
of these two ways, or to have the law forbid its 
using one of them at the risk of rejecting the 
best ? 

—It seems to me that it would be best for the 
nation to have the choice, since in these matters it 
always makes a good selection. 

—The law which prohibits the introduction of 
foreign cloth, decides, then, that if France wants 
cloth, it must make it at home, and that it is for- 
bidden to make that something else with which it 
could purchase foreign cloth? 

—That is true. 

—And as it is obliged to make cloth, and for- 
bidden to make something else, just because the other 
thing would require less labor (without which 
France would have no occasion to do anything with 
it), the law virtually decrees, that for a certaiz 


\ 


300 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


amount of labor, France shall have but one yard 
of cloth, making it itself, when, for the same 
amount of labor, it could have had two yards, by 
making something else. 

—But what other thing? 

—No matter what. Being free to choose, it will 
make something else only so long as there is some- 
thing else to make. 

—That is possible; but I cannot rid myself of 
the idea that the foreigners may send us cloth and 
not take something else, in which case we shall be 
prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is the 
objection, even from your own point of view. You 
admit that France will make this something else, 
which is to be exchanged for cloth, with less labor 
than if it had made the cloth itself? 

-—Doubiless. 

-—Then acertain quantity of its labor will become 
inert ? 

——Yes; but people will be no worse clothed—a 
little circumstance which causes the whole misun- 
derstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and our 
protectionists do not see it, or pretend not to. The 
stranded plank thus paralyzed for fifteen days 
Robinson’s labor, so far as it was applied to the 
making of a plank, but it did not deprive him of it. 
Distinguish, then, between these two kinds of 
diminution of labor, one resulting in privation, and 
the other in comfort. These two things are very 


LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 301 


different, and if you assimilate them, you reason 
like Robinson. In the most complicated, as in the 
most simple instances, the sophism consists in this : 
Judging of the utility of labor by tts duration and 
intensity, and not by tts results, which leads to this 
economic policy, a reduction of the results of labor, 
an order to increase tts duration and intensity. 


XV. 


THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER, 


—Ir they say to you: There are no absolute 
principles; prohibition may be bad, and restriction 
good— : 

Reply: Restriction prohibits all that it keeps 
from coming in. 

—If they say to you: Agriculture is the nurs- 
ing mother of the country— 

Reply: That which feeds a country is not 
exactly agriculture, but grain. 

—If they say to you: The basis of the suste- 
nance of the people is agriculture— 

Reply: The basis of the sustenance of the peo- 
ple is grain. ‘Thus a law which causes two bushels 
of grain to be obtained by agricultural labor at the 
expense of four bushels, which the same labor 


é 


3802 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. - 


would have produced but for it, far from being a 
law of sustenance, is a law of starvation. 

—If they say to you: A restriction on the 
admission of foreign grain leads to more cultiva 
tion, and, consequently, to a greater home produc: | 
tion— | 

Reply: It leads to sowing on the rocks of the 
mountains and the sands of the sea. . To milk and 
steadily milk, a cow gives more milk; for who can 
tell the moment when not a drop more can be 
obtained? But the drop costs dear. 

—If they say toyou: Let bread be dear, and 
the wealthy farmer will enrich the artisans— 

Reply: Bread is dear when there is little of 3, 
a thing which can make but poor, or, if you please, 
rich people who are starving. 

—If they insist on it, saying: When food is 
dear, wages rise— 

Reply by showing that in April, 1847, five-sixths 
of the workingmen were beggars. 

—If they say to you: ‘The profits of the work- 
ingmen must rise with the dearness of food— 

Reply: This is equivalent to saying that in an 
unprovisioned vessel everybody has the same num- 
ber of biscuits whether he has any or not. 

—If they say to you: A good price must be 
secured for those who sell grain— 

Reply: Certainly; but good wages must be 
secured to those who buy it. | 


LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 3803 


—If they say to you: The land owners, who 
make the law, have raised the price of food with- 
out troubling themselves about wages, because they 
know that when food becomes dear, wages naturally 
rise— i 

Reply: On this principle, when workingmen 
come to make the law, do not blame them if they 
fix a high rate of wages without troubling them- 
selves to protect grain, for they know that if wages 
are raised, articles of food will naturally rise in’ - 
price. | 
—If they say to you: What, then, is to be 
done ? 

Reply: Be just to everybody. 

—If they say toyou: Itis essential that a great 
country should manufacture iron— 

Reply: The most essential thing is that this 
great country should have tron. 

—If they say to you: It is necessary that a 
great country should manufacture cloth. 

Reply: It is more necessary that the citizens of 
this great country should have cloth. 

—If they say to you: Labor is wealth— 

Reply: It is false. 

And, by way of developing this, add: A bleed- 
ing is not health, and the proof of it is, that it is 
eae to restore health. 

—If they say to you: To compel men to work 
over rocks and get an ounce of iron from a ton of’ 


804 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


ore, is to increase their labor, and, consequently, 
their wealth— 

Reply: To compel men to dig wells, by deny- 
ing them the use of river water, is to add to their 
useless labor, but not their wealth. 

—If they say to you: The sun gives his heat 
and light without requiring remuneration— 

Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs 

me nothing to see distinctly. 
" And if they reply to you: Industry in gen- 
eral loses what you would have paid for lights— 

Retort: No, for having paid nothing to the sun, 
I use that which it saves me in paying for clothes, 
furniture and candles. 

—So, if they say to you: These English rascals 
have capital which pays them nothing— 

Reply: So much the better for us; they will 
not make us pay interest. 

—If they say to you: These perfidious English- 
men find iron and coal at the same spot— 

Reply: So much the better for us; they will 
not make us pay anything for bringing them 
together. 

—If they say to you: The Swiss have rich pas- 
tures which cost littl— 

Reply: The advantage is on our side, for they 
will ask for a lesser quantity of our labor to fur- 
nish our farmers oxen and our stomachs food. 

—If they say to you: The lands in the Crimea 
are worth nothing, and pay no taxes— 


LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 305 


Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy 
grain free from those charges. | 

—If theysay to you: Theserfs of Poland work 
without wages— 

Reply: The loss is theirs and the gain is ours, 
since their labor is deducted from the price of the 
grain which their masters sell us. 

—Then, if they say to you: Other nations have 
many advantages over us— 

Reply: By exchange, they are forced to let us 
share in them. | 

—If they say to you: With liberty we shall be 
swamped with bread, beef a la mode, coal, and 
coats— 

Reply: We shall be neither cold nor hungry. 

—If they say toyou: With what shall we pay? 

Reply: Do not be troubled about that. If we 
are to be inundated, it will be because we are able 
to pay. If we cannot pay we will not be inun- 
dated. 

—If they say to you: I would allow free trade, 
if a stranger, in bringing us one thing, took away 
another ; but he will carry off our specie— 

Reply: Neither specie nor coffee grow in the 
fields of Beauce or come out of the manufactories 
of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner with specie 
is like paying him with coffee. 

—If they say to you: Hat meat— 

Reply: Let it come in. 


806 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


—If they say to you, like the Presse: When 
you have not the money to buy bread with, buy 
beef— 

Reply: This advice is as wise as that of Vau- 
tour to his tenant, “If a person has not money to 
pay his rent with, he ought to have a house of his 
own.” 

—If they say to you, like the Presse: The State 
ought to teach the people why and how it should 
eat meat— 

Reply: Only let the State allow tlie meat free 
entrance, and the most civilized people in the world 
are old enough to learn to eat it without any 
teacher. 

—If they say to you: The State ought to know 
everything, and foresee everything, to guide the 
people, and the people have only to let themselves 
be guided— 

Reply: Is there a State outside of the people, 
and a human foresight outside of humanity? 
Archimedes might have repeated all the days of his 
life, “ With a lever and a fulerum I will move the 
world,” but he could not have moved it, for want 
of those two things. The fulcrum of the State is 
the nation, and nothing is madder than to build so 
many hopes on the State ;. that is to say, to assume 
a collective science and foresight, after having 
established individual folly and. short-sightedness. 

—-If they say to you: My God! Lask no favors, 


LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 307 


but only a duty on grain and meat, which may _ 
compensate for the heavy taxes to which France is 
subjected ; a mere little duty, equal to what these 
taxes add to the cost of my grain— 

Reply: A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay 
taxes. If, then, the protection which you vote 
yourself results in burdening for me, your grain 
with your proportion of the taxes, your insinuating 
demand aims at nothing less than the establishment 
between us of the following arrangement, thus 
worded by yourself: “Since the public burdens 
are heavy, I, who sell grain, will pay nothing at 
all; and you, my neighbor, the buyer, shall pay 
two parts, to wit, your share and mine.” My neigh- 
bor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your 
side, but not reason. 

—If they say to you: Itis, however, very hard 
for me, a tax payer, to compete in my own market 
with foreigners who pay none— 

Reply: First, This is not your market, but our 
market. I who live on grain, and pay for it, must 
be counted for something. 

Secondly. Few foreigners at this time are free 
from taxes. 

Thirdly. If the tax which you vote repays to 
you, in roads, canals and safety, more than it costs 
you, you are not justified in driving away, at my 
expense, the competition of foreigners who do not 
pay the tax but who do not have the safety, roads ~ 


4 


308 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


and canals. It is the same as saying: I want a 
compensating duty, because I have fine clothes, 
stronger horses and better plows than the Russian 
laborer. 

Fourthly. If the tax does not repay wha it 
costs, do not vote it. 

Fifthly. If, after you have voted a tax, it is your 
pleasure to escape its operation, invent a system 
which will throw it on foreigners. But the tariff 
‘only throws your proportion on me, when I already 
have enough of my own. 

—If they say to you: Freedom of commerce 
is necessary among the Russians that they may 
exchange their products wiih advantage (opinion of 
M. Thiers, April, 1847)— 

Reply: This freedom is necessary everywhere, 
and forthe same reason. 

—If they say to you: Hach country has its 
wants; it is according to that that 2 must act 
(M. Thiers)— , 

Reply: It is according to that that 7d acts of 
atself when no one hinders it. 

—If they say toyou: Since we have no sheet 
iron, its admission must be allowed (M. Thiers)— 

Reply. Thank you, kindly. 

—If they say to you: Our merchant marine 
must have freight; owing to the lack of return 
cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreign 
ones— 


THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 309 


Reply: When you want to do everything at 
home, you can have cargoes neither going nor com- 
ing. It is as absurd to wish fora navy under a 
prohibitory system as to wish for carts where all 
transportation is forbidden. 

—If they say to you: Supposing that protection 
is unjust, everything is founded on it; there are 
moneys invested, and rights acquired, and it cannot 
be abandoned without suffering— 

Reply: Every injustice profits some one (ex- 
cept, perhaps, restriction, which in the long run profits 
no one), and to use as an argument the disturbance 
which the cessation of the injustice causes to the per- 
son profiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only 
because it has existed for a moment, should be 
eternal. | 


SVE 
THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 
[ Report to the King. | 


SrrE—When we see these menof the Jzbre 
Echange audaciously disseminating their doctrines, 
and maintaining that the right of buying and 
selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of 
insolence that M. Billault has criticised like a true 


310 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


lawyer), we may be allowed to entertain serious 
fears as to the destiny of national labor; for what 
will Frenchmen do with their arms and mec 
when they are free? 

The Ministry which you have honored with your 
confidence has naturally paid great attention to se 
serious a subject, and has sought in its wisdom for 
a protection which might be substituted for that 
which appears compromised. It proposes to you to 
forbid your faithful subjects the use of the right 
hand. 

Sire, do not wrong us so an as to suka that we 
lightly adopted a measure which, at the-first glance, 
may appear odd. Deep study of the protective 
system has revealed to us this syllogism, on which 
it entirely rests : 

The more one labors, the richer one is. 

The more difficulties one has to conquer, the more 
one labors. 

Zérgo, the more difficulties one has to conquer, the 
richer one is. | 

What is protection, really, but an ingenious appli- 
cation of this formal reasoning, which is so compact 
_that it would resist the subtlety of M. Billault 
himself ? 

Let us personify the country. Let us look on it 
as a collective being, with thirty million mouths, 
and, consequently, sixty million arms. This being 
makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in 


THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 381i 


Belgium for ten quintals of iron. “But,” we say to 
him, “make the iron yourself” ‘TI cannot,” says 
he; “it would take me too much time, and I could 
not make five quintals while I can make one clock.” 
“Utopist!” we reply; “for this very reason we 
forbid your making the clock, and order you to 
make the iron. Do not you see that we create you 
labor?” 

Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that 
it is just as if we said to the country, Labor with 
the left hand, and not with the right. 

The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an 
opportunity to develop itself, is the principle of the 
restriction which is dying. It is also the principle 
of the restriction which is about to becreated. Sire, 
to make such regulations is not to innovate, but to 
preserve. 

The efficacy of the measure is incontestable. It 
is difficult—much more difficult than one thinks— 
to do with the left hand what one was accustomed 
to do with the right. You will convince yourself 
of it, Sire, if you will condescend to try our system 
on something which is familiar to you,—like shuf- 
fling cards, for instance. We can then flatter our- 
selves that we have opened an illimitable career 
to labor. | 

When workmen of all kinds are reduced to their 
left hands, consider, Sire, the immense number that 
will be required to meet the present consumption, 


\ 


312 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


supposing it to be invariable, which we always do 
when we compare differing systems of production. 
So prodigious a demand for manual labor cannot 
fail to bring about a considerable increase in wages ; 
and pauperism will disappear from the country as 
if by enchantment. 

Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the 
thought that the benefits of this regulation will 
extend over that interesting portion of the great 
family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude. 

What is the destiny of women in France? That 
sex which is the boldest and most hardened to 
fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from all fields 
of labor. 

Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery 
offices. ‘These have been closed by a_ pitiless 
philanthropy; and under what pretext? “To 
save,” said they, “‘the money of the poor.” Alas! 
has a poor man ever obtained from a piece of 
money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those 
which the mysterious urn of fortune contained for 
him? Cut off from all the sweets of life, how 
many delicious hours did he introduce into the 
bosom of his family when, every two weeks, he put 
the value of a day’s labor on a quatern. Hope had 
always her place at the domestic hearth. The gar- 
ret was peopled with illusions; the wife promised 
herself that she would eclipse her neighbors with 
the splendor of her attire; the son saw himself 


— 


THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 313 


drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried 
toward the altar in the arms of her betrothed. To 
have a beautiful dream is certainly something. 

The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we 
have allowed it to escape them. 

The lottery dead, what means have we of pro- 
viding for our proteges?—tobacco, and the postal 
service. 

Tobacco, certainly; it progresses, thanks to 
Heaven, and the distinguished habits which august 
examples have been enabled to introduce among 
our elegant youth. 

But the postal service! We will say nothing 
of that, but make it the subject of a special report. 

Then what is left to your female subjects except 
tobacco? Nothing, except embroidery, knitting, 
and sewing, pitiful resources, which are more and 
more restricted by that barbarous science, me- 
chanics. 

But as soon as your ordinance has appeared, as 
soon as the right hands are cut off or tied up, 
everything will change face. Twenty, thirty times 
more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seam- 
stresses and shirt-makers, would not meet the con- 
sumption (oni soit qui mal y pense) of the kingdom ; 
always assuming that it is invariable, according to 
our way of reasoning. 

It is true that this supposition might be denied 


by cold-blooded theorists, for dresses and shirts 
28 


\ 


314 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


would be dearer. But they say the same thing of 
the iron which France gets from our mines, com- 
pared to the vintage it could get on our hillsides. 
This argument can, therefore, be no more entertained 
against left-handedness than against protection ; for 
this very dearness is the result and the sign of the 
excess of efforts and of labors, which is precisely 
the basis on which, in one case, as in the other, we 
claim to found the prosperity of the working 
classes. | 

Yes, we make a touching picture of the pros- 
perity of the sewing business. What movement! 
What activity! What life! Each dress will busy 
a hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will 
there be an idle young girl, and we need not, Sire, 
point out to your perspicacity the moral results of 
this great revolution. Not only will there be more 
women employed, but each one of them will earn 
more, for they cannot meet the demand, and if 
competition still shows itself, it will no longer be 
among the workingwomen who make tke dresses, 
but the beautiful ladies-who wear them. 

You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only 
conformable to the economic traditions of the 
government, but it is also essentially moral and 
democratic. | 

To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realised; 
let us transport ourselves in thought into the 
future; let us imagine the system in action fm 


THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 815 


twenty years. Idleness is banished from the coun- 
_ try; ease and concord, contentment and morality, 
have entered all families together with labor; there 
1s no more misery and no more prostitution. The 
left hand being very clumsy at its work, there is a 
superabundance of labor, and the pay is satisfactory. 
Everything is based on this, and, as a consequence, 
the workshops are filled. Is it not true, Sire, that 
if Utopians were to suddenly demand the freedom 
of the right hand, they would spread alarm through- 
out the country? Is it not true that this pretended 
_ reform would overthrow all existences? ‘Then our 
system is good, since it cannot be overthrown with- 
out causing great distress. 

Jtowever, we have asad presentiment that some 
day (so great is the perversity of man) an associa- 
tion will be organized to secure the liberty of right 
hands. 

It seems to us that we already hear these free- 
right-handers speak as follows in the Salle Mon- 
tesquieu : 

‘People, you believe yourselves richer because 
they have taken from you one hand; you see but 
_ the increase of labor which results to you from it. 
But look also at the dearness it causes, and the 
forced decrease in the consumption of all articles. 
This measure has not made capital, which is the 
source of wages, more abundant. The waters which 
flow from this great reservoir are directed into other 


816 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


channels; the quantity is not increased, and the 
definite result is, for the nation, as a whole, a loss 
of comfort equal to the excess of the production of 
several millions of right hands, over several millions 
of left hands. Then let us form a league, and, at 
the expense of some inevitable disturbances, let us 
conquer the right of working with both hands.” 

Happily, Sire, there will. be organized an assocza- 
tion for the defense of left-handed labor, and the 
Sinistrists will have no trouble in reducing to 
nothing all these generalities and realities, supposi- 
tions and abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They 
need only to exhume the Moniteur Industriel of 
1846, and they will find, ready-made, arguments 
against free trade, which destroy so admirably this 
liberty of the right hand, that all that is required is 
to substitute one word for another. 

“The Parisian Free Trade League never doubted 
but that it would have the assistance of the ~ 
workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer 
be led by the nose. They have their eyes open, 
-and they know political economy better than our 
diplomaed professors. | Free trade, they replied, will 
take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, 
sovereign property ; with labor, with much labor, the 
price of articles of merchandise is never beyond reach. 
But without labor, even if bread should cost but 
a penny a pound, the workingman is compelled to 
die of hunger. Now, your doctrines, instead of 


THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 317 


increasing the amount of labor in France, diminish 
it; that is to say, you reduce us to misery.” 
(Number of October 18, 1846.) 

“Tt is true, that when there are too many manu- 
factured articles to sell, their price falls; but as 
wages decrease when these articles sink in value, 
the result is, that, instead of being able to buy 
them, we can buy nothing. Thus, when they are 
‘cheapest, the workingman is most unhappy.” 
(Gauthier de Rumilly, Moniteur Industriel of Novem- 
ber 17.) 

It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle 
some threats with their beautiful theories. This is 
a sample: 7 

“ What! to desire to substitute the labor of the 
right hand for that of the left, and thus to cause a 
forced reduction, if not an annihilation of wages, 
the sole resource of almost the entire nation ! 

“ And this at the moment when poor harvests 
already impose painful sacrifices on the working- 
man, disquiet him as to his future, and make him 
more accessible to bad counsels and ready to aban- 
don the wise course of conduct he had hitherto 
adhered to!” 

We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise 
reasonings, if a struggle takes place, the left hand 
will come out of it victorious. 

Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in 
order to ascertain whether the right and the left 


\ 


318 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


hand are not both wrong, and if there is not a third 
hand between them, in order to conciliate all. 

After having described the Desxterists as seduced 
by the apparent liberality of a principle, the correctness 
of which has not yet been verified by experience, and 
the Sinistrists as encamping in the positions bee 
have gained, it will say: 

“ And yet they deny that there is a third course 
to pursue in the midst of the conflict; and they do 
not see that the working classes eis to defend 
themselves, at the same moment, against those who 
wish to change nothing in the present situation, 
because they find their advantage in it, and against 
those who dream of an economic revolution of 
which they have calculated neither the extent nor 
the significance.” (National of October 16.) _ 

We do not desire, however, to hide from your 
Majesty the fact that our plan has a vulnerable side. 
They may say to us: In twenty years all left hands 
will be as skilled as right. ones are now, and you 
can no longer count on left-handedness to increase 
the national labor. 

We reply to this, that, according to learned phy- 
sicians, the left side of the body has a natural — 
weakness, which is very reassuring for the future 
of labor. 

Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great 
principle will have prevailed: All wealth comes from 
the intensity of labor. It will be easy for us to 


SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 319 


extend it, and vary its application. We will 
declare, for instance, that it shall be allowable to 
work only with the feet. This is no more impos- 
sible (for there have been instances) than to extract 
iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even 
been men who wrote with their backs. You see, 
Sire, that we do not lack means of increasing 
national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there 
remains the boundless resource of amputation. 

If this report, Sire, was not intended for publica- 
tion, we would call your attention to the great 
influence which systems analogous to the one we 
submit to you, are capable of giving to men in 
power. But this is a subject which we reserve for 
consideration in private counsel. 


XVIL 
~ SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 


“ As ina time of war, supremacy is attained by 
superiority in arms, can, in a time of peace, suprem- 
acy be secured by superiority in labor ?” 

This question is of the greatest interest at a time 
when no one seems to doubt that in the field of 
industry, as on that of battle, the stronyer crushes 
ihe weaker. 


320 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


x 
~ This must result from the discovery of some sad 
and discouraging analogy between labor, which 
exercises itself on things, and violence, which exer- 
cises itself on men ; for how could these two things 
be identical in theit effects, x they were opposed in 
their nature? 
And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, 
supremacy is the necessary result of superiority, 
why need we occupy ourselves with progress or 
social economy, since we are in a world where all 
has been so arranged by Providence that one and 
the same result, oppression, necessarily flows from 
the most antagonistic principles ? 

Referring to the new policy toward which com- 
mercial freedom is drawing England, many persons 
make this objection, which, I admit, occupies the 
sincerest minds. “Is England doing anything 
more than pursuing the same end by different 
means? Does she not constantly aspire to univer- 
salsupremacy? Sureof the superiority of her cap- 
ital and labor, does she not call in free competition 
to stifle the industry of the continent, reign as a 
sovereign, and | conquer the privilege of fete and 
clothing the ruined peoples ?” | 

It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these 
alarms are chimerical ; that our pretended inferiority 
is greatly exaggerated; that all our great branches 
of industry not only resist foreign competition, but 
develop themselves under its influence, and that its 


SUPREMACY BY LABOR. | eZ 


infallible effect is to bring about an increase in 
general consumption capable of absense both 
foreign and domestic products. 

To-day I desire to attack this ahiecian Arent 
leaving it all its power and: the advantage of the 
ground it has chosen. Putting English and French 
on one side, I will try to find out ina general way, 
if, even though by superiority in one branch of 
industry, one nation -has crushed out similar iudus- 
trial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a 
step toward supremacy, and that one toward depen- 
dence; in other words, if both do not gain by the 
eperations and if the eananemnd do not. gaint the 
most by it. ! 

If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it 
is certain that the alarm of the protectionists is well 
founded... If we consider iron, for instance, only in 
connection with the masters of forges, it might be 
feared that the competition of a country where iron 
was a gratuitous gift of nature, would extinguish 
the furnaces of another country, where ore and 
fuel were scarce. | 
But is this a complete view of the snbeaolst Are 
there relations only between iron and those who 
make it? Has it none with those who use it? Is its 
definite and only destination to be produced?) And 
if it is useful, not on account of the labor which it 
causes, but on account. of the qualities which it 


possesses, and the numerous services for which its 
29 


\ 


3822 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow 
that foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far 
as to prevent its production among us, without 
doing us more good, under the last statement of the 
case, than it injures us, under the first? 

Please consider well that there are many things 
which foreigners, owing to the natural advantages 
which surround them, hinder us from producing 
directly, and in regard to which we are placed, in 
reality, in the hypothetical position which we exam- 
ined relative to iron. We produce at home neither 
tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that 
our labor, as a whole, is thereby diminished? No; 
only to create the equivalent of these things, to 
acquire them by way of exchange, we detach from 
our general labor a smailer portion than we would 
require to produce them ourselves. More remains 
to us to use for other things. We are so much the 
richer and stronger.» All that external rivalry can 
do, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from 
any certain form of labor, is to. encourage our 
labor, and increase our productive power. Is that 
the road to supremacy, for foreigners ? 

If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, 
it does not follow that it would be for our interests 
to work it. It is even certain tkat the enterprise 
ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold 
absorbed more of our labor than an ounce of gold 
bought in Mexico with cloth. In this case, it 


SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 823 


would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our 
manufactories. What is true of gold is true of 
iron. 

The illusion comes from the fact that one thing 
is not seen. ‘That is, that foreign superiority pre- 
vents national labor, only under some certain form, 
and makes it superfluous under this form, but by 
putting at our disposal the very result of the labor 
tnus annihilated. If men lived in diving-bells, 
under the water, and had to provide themselves 
with.air by the use of pumps, there would be an 
immense source of labor. To destroy this. labor, 
leaving men tn this condition, would be to do them a 
terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the 
necessity for it has gone; because men are placed 
in another position, where air reaches the lungs 
without an effort, then the loss of this labor is not 
to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who 
appreciate in labor, only the labor itself. 

It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, 
commercial freedom, and progress of all sorts, 
gradually annihilate; not useful labor, but labor | 
which has become superfluous, supernumerary, 
objectless, and without result. On the other hand, 
protection restores it to activity; it replaces us 
under the water, so as to give us an opportunity of 
pumping; it forces us to ask for gold from the 
inaceessible national mine, rather than from our 
national manufactories. All its effectis summed up 
in this phrase—loss of power. 


824 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


It must be understood that I speak here of gen- 
eral effects, and not of the temporary disturbances 
occasioned by the transition from a bad to a good 
system. A momentary disarrangement necessarily 
accompanies all progress. ‘This may be a reason 
for making the transition a gentle one, but not for 
systematically interdicting all progress, and still 
less for misunderstanding it. 

They represent industry to us as a wee 
This is not true; or is true only when you confine 
yourself to considering each branch of industry in 
its effects on some similar branch—in isolating both, 
in the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there 
is something else; there are its effects on consump- 
tion, and thn eae well-being. thi 

This as: the reason why it is not allowable to 
assimilate labor to war as they do. | 

In war, the strongest overwhelms the weakest. 

In labor, the strongest gives strength to the weakest. 
This radically destroys the analogy. 

Though the English are strong and. skilled ; 
possess immense invested capital, and have at their 
disposal the:two great powers of production, iron 
and fire, all this is converted into the: cheapness of 
the product; and who gains by the: eis of the 
product ?—he who buys it, 

It is not.in their power to absolutely anaieilne 
any portion of our labor. -All that they can do is 
to make it superfluous ghrough some result acquired — 


SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 825 


—to give air at the same time that they suppress 
the pump; to increase thus the force at our dis- 
posal, and, which is a remarkable thing, to render 
their Seca supremacy more impossible, .as thei: 
superiority becomes more undeniable. | 
Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, 
we reach this conclusion: That labor and violence, 
so opposed in their nature, are, whatever socialists 
and protectionists may say) no less so. in their 
effects... ; 
All we required, to do ‘hati. was s to distinguish 
between annihilated labor and economized. labor... 
Having less iron because one works less, or hav- 
ing more. iron. although one. works. less, are things 
The protectionists pacrncet them ; we do cat 
That is all. . . : isla 
Be convinced of one oie If the English 
bring into play much. activity, labor, capital, intel- 
ligence, and natural force, it is not for the love of 
us. It is. to give themselves many comforts. in 
exchange for their products. They certainly desire 
to receive at least as much as they give, and they 
make at home the payment for that. which, they buy 
elsewhere. If then, they inundate us with their pro- 
ducts, it is because they expect to be inundated 
with ours. In this case, the best way to have much 
for ourselves is to be free to choose between these 
two methods of production: direct production or 


826 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 


indirect production. All-the British Machiavelism 
cannot lead us to make a bad choice. 

Let us then stop assimilating industrial competi- 
tion with war ; a false assimilation, which is specious 
only when two rival branches of industry are iso- 
lated, in order to judge of the effects of competi- 
tion. As soon as the effect produced on the gen- 
eral well-being is taken into consideration, the 
analogy disappears. | 

In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, 
and the army is weakened just that much. In 
manufactures, one manufactory succumbs only so 
far as the total of national labor replaces what it 
produced, with an excess. Imagine a state of affairs 
where for one man, stretched on the plain, two 
spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a 
planet where such things happen, it must be admit- 
ted that war is carried on there under conditions so 
different from those which obtain here below, that 
it does not even deserve that name. 

Now, this is the distinguishing character of what 
they have so inappropriately called an industrial 
war. 

Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of 
their iron, if they can, and keep on reducing it, 
until they bring it down to nothing. They may 
thereby put out one of our furnaces—kill one of 
our soldiers; but I defy them to hinder a thousand 
other industries, more profitable than the disabled 


SUPREMACY BY LABOR. One 


one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence 
of this very cheapness, resuscitating and develop- 
ing themselves. 

Let us decide that supremacy by labor is impos- 
sible and contradictory, since all superiority which 
manifests itself among a people is converted into 
cheapness, and results only in giving force to all 
others. Let us, then, banish from political econ- 
omy all these expressions borrowed from the vocab. 
ulary cf battles: to struggle with equal arms, to con 


a 


quer, to crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute. — 


What do these words mean? Squeeze them, and 
nothing comes out of them. We are mistaken; 
there come from them absurd errors and fatal pre- 
judice’. These are the words which stop the 
blending of peoples, their peaceful, universal, indis- 
soluble alliance, and the progress of humanity. 


eee ee 


a 


+2 ao 
. gat ay) ayes are yt eis 


‘candvon bua 


eae. oft 


Pr& Be Ded EEL: 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures: 


GENTLEMEN—Let us for a few moments inter 
change moderate and friendly opinions. 

You are not. willing that political economy 
should believe and teach free trade. 

This is as though you were to say, ‘“ We are not 
willing that political economy should occupy itself 
with society, exchange, value, law, justice, property. 


* On the 27th of April, 1850, after a very curious discussion, which was 
reproduced in the Monitewr, the General Council of Agriculture, Manufac- 
tures and Commerce issued the following order: 

“Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, not 
merely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also with special 
regard to the facts and legislation which control French industry.” 

It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet Spoliation 
and Law, which first appearedin the Journal des Economisies, May 15, 


1850 \ 
(329) 


330 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


We recognize only two principles—oppressi pn and 
spoliation.” 

Can you possibly conceive of political economy 
without society? Or of society without exchange? 
Or of exchange without a relative value between 
the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? 
Can you possibly ‘conceive the idea of value, except 
as the result of the free consent of the exchangers? 
Can you conceive of one product being worth 
another, if, in the barter, one of the parties is not. 
Jree? Is it possible for you to conceive of the free 
consent of two parties without liberty? Can you 
possibly conceive that one of the contracting parties 
is. deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by 
the other? Can you possibly conceive of an 
exchange between an oppressor and one oppressed, 
unless the equivalence of. the services is altered, or 
unless, as a consequence, law, justice, and the 
rights of property have been violated ? 

What do you really want? Answer frankly. 

You are not willing that trade should be free! 

You desire, then, that it shall not be free? You 
desire, then, that trade shall be carried on under 
the influence of oppression? For if it is not 
carried on under the influence of oppression, it will 
be carried on under the influence of liberty, and 
that is what you do not desire. 

Admit, then, that it is law and justice which 
embarrass you; that that which troubles you is 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 3831 


property -—not your own, to be sure, but another's. 
You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freely 
dispose of their own property (the essential condi- 
tion of ownership); but you well understand how 
to dispose of your own—and of theirs. 

And, accordingly, you ask the political econo- 
mists to arrange this mass of absurdities and mon- 
strosities in a definite and well-ordered system; to 
_ establish, in accordance with your practice, the 
theory of spoliation. 

But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, 
spoliation is a principle of hatred and disorder, and 
the most particularly odious Sg which it can 
assume is.the legal form. 

And here, Mr. Benoit d’ Azy, I take-you to ek 
You are moderate, impartial, and generous. You 
are willing to sacrifice your interests and your for- 
tune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in 
the General Council, you said: “If the rich had 
only to abandon their wealth to make the people 
rich we should all be ready to do it.” [Hear, hear. 
It is true.] And yesterday, in the National Assem 
bly, you said: “If I believed that it was in my 
power to give to the workingmen all the work they 
need, I would give all I possess to realize this bless- 
ing. Unfortunately, it is impossible.” | 

Although it pains you that the sacrifice is so 
useless that it should not be made, and you exclaim, 
with Basile, ‘Money! money! I detest it—but J 


882 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


will keep it,” assuredly no one will question a gen- 
erosity so retentive, however barren. It is a virtue 
which loves to envelop itself in a veil of modesty, 
especially when it is purely latent and negative, 
As for you, you will. lose no opportunity to pro- 
claim it in the ears of all France from the tribune 
of the Luxembourg and the Palais Legislatif. 

But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, 
and I admit that it would not solve the social 
problem. 

You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only 
venture to ask that you will be just. Keep your 
fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect 
my property as I respect yours. Is this. too bold a 
request on my part? 

- Suppose we lived in a. ponniy dues a free denne 
regime, where every one could dispose of his. prop- 
erty and his labor at pleasure. Does this make 
your hair stand? Reassure youraaly this is cams an 
hypothesis. 

One would then be as ures as the other. There 
would, indeed, be a law in the code, but this law, 
impartial. and just, would not infringe our liberty, 
but would guarantee it, and it would take effect 
only when we sought to oppress each other. . There 
would be officers of the law, magistrates and police; 
but they would only execute the law. Under such 
a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron 
foundry, and that I was a hatter, I should need 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 3883 


iron for my business. Naturally I should seek 
to solve this problem : .“‘ How shall I best procure 
the iron necessary for my business with the least 
possible amount of labor?” Considering my situa- 
tion, and my means of knowledge, I should. dis- 
cover that the best thing for me to do would be to 
make hats, and sell them toa Belgian who would 
give me iron in exchange, 

But you, being the owner of an iron fonedae 
and considering: my case, would say to yourself: 
“T shall be obliged to. omipel that foto to come to 
my shop.” | 

You, accordingly, sae your sword and ae 
and, arming your numerous retinue, proceed to the 
frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in 
making my trade, you cry out tome: ‘Stop that, 
or I will blow your brains out!” ‘But, my lord, 
J am in need of iron.” ‘‘I have it to sell.” “But, 
sir, you ask too much for it.” ‘I have my reasons 
for that.” “But, my good sir, I also have my reasons 
for preferring cheaper iron.” ‘ Well, we shall 
see who shall decide between your reasons and 
mine! Soldiers, advance! ” 

In short, you forbid the anit of the Halen 
iron, and prevent the export cf my hats. 

Under the condition of things which we have 
supposed (that is, under a regime of liberty), you 
cannot deny that that would be, on your part, man- 
ifestly an act of oppression and spolation. 


334 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the 
magistrate, and the power of the government. 
They would intervene. You would be tried, con- 
demned, and justly punished. — 

But this circumstance would suggest to youa 
bright idea. You would say to yourself: ‘I have 
been very simple to give myself so much trouble. 
What! place myself in a position where I must 
kill some one, or be killed! degrade myself! put 
my domestics under arms! incur heavy expenses! 
give myself the character of a robber, and render 
myself liable to the laws of the country! And-all 
this in order to compel a miserable hatter to come 
to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What if I 
should make the interest of the law, of the magis- 
trate, of the public authorities, my interests? 
What if I could get them to perform the odious act 
on the frontier which I was about to do myself? ” 

Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure 
a nomination to the Chambers, and obtain the pas- 
sage of a law conceived in the following terms: 

Section 1. There shall bea tax levied upon 
everybody (but especially upon that cursed: hat- 
maker). 

Sec. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be 
applied to the payment of men to guard the fron: 
tier in the interest of iron-founders. 

Sec. 8. It shall be their duty to prevent the 
exchange of hats .or other articles of merchandise 
with the Belgians for iron. | 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 835 


Sec. 4. The ministers of the government, the 
prosecuting attorneys, jailers, customs officers, and 
all officials, are entrusted with the execution of this 
law. 

I admit, sir, that in this form obbary would be 
far more lucrative, more agreeable, and less perilous 
- than under the arrangements which you had atmfirst 
determined upon. J admit that for you it would 
offer a very pleasant prospect. You could most 
assuredly laugh in your sleeve, for you would then . 
have saddled all the expenses upon me. 

But I affirm that you would have introduced into 
society a vicious principle, a principle of immoral- 
ity, of disorder, of hatred, and of incessant revolu- 
tions; that you would have prepared the way for 
all the various schemes e socialism and com- 
munism. 

You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold 
one. Well, then, let us reverse the case. I consent 
for the sake of the demonstration. 

Suppose that I ama laborer and you an iron- 
founder. 

It would be a great advantage to me to buy 
hatchets cheap, and even to get them for nothing. 
And I know that there are hatchets and saws in 
your establishment. Accordingly, without any 
ceremony, I enter your warehouse and seize every- 
thing that I can lay my hands upon.. 

But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of 


336 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


self-defense, you at first resist force with force; 
afterwards, invoking the power of the law, the 
magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into 
prison—and you do well. 

Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that 
I have been very awkward in this business.. When 
a person wishes to enjoy the property of other 
people, he will, unless he is a fool, act 2 accordance 
with the law, and not zn violation of it. Conse- 
quently, just as you have made yourself a protec- 
tionist, I will make. myself a socialist. Since you 
have laid claim to the right to profit, I claim the 
right to labor, or to the instruments of labor. 

For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, 
and I know by heart. this. doctrine: ‘In order to 
disenthrall themselves, the common ‘people have 
need of tools to work with; it is the function of 
the government. to provide them.” And again: 
“If one admits that, in order to be really free, a 
man requires the ability to exercise and to develop 
his faculties, the result is that society owes each 
of its members instruction, without which the 
human mind is incapable of development, and the 
instruments of labor, without which human activi- 
ties have no field for their exercise. But by what 
means can society give to each one of its members 
the necessary instruction:and the necessary instru- 
ments of labor, except by the intervention of the 
State?” So that if it becomes necessary to revolu- 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 338 


tionize the country, I also will force my way into 
the halls of legislation. also will pervert the law, 
and make it perform in my behalf and at your 
expense the very act for which it just now punished 
me. 

My decree is mddelad after yours : | 

Section 1. There shall be taxes levied upon 
every citizen, and especially upon iron founders. 

Sec. 2... The proceeds’ of this tax shall be 
applied to the creation of armed corps, to which 
the title of the fraternal constabulary shall be given. 

Sec. 8. It shall be the duty of the /raternal 
constabulary to make. their way into the warehouses 
of hatchets, saws, etc., to take possession of these 
tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen 
as may desire them. ere 

Thanks to. this ingenious He wicee! you see, my 
lord, that I shall no longer be obliged to bear the 
risks, the costs, the odium, or the scruples of rob- 
bery.. The State will rob for me as it. has for you. 
We shall both be playing the same game. 

It remains, to be seen: what would. be the conan 
tion of French. society on the. realization of .my 
second hypothesis, or what, at least, is the condition 
of it after the almost complete realization of the 
first hypothesis. .I do not desire to discuss here the 
economy of the question. It is generally believed 
that in advocating free trade we are exclusively 


influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor 
30 


3388 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


to take the direction most advantageous to them. 
This is an error. This consideration is merely 
secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and is 
revolting to us in the protective system, is the 
denial of right, of justice, of property; it is the 
fact that the system turns the law against justice 
and against property, when it ought to protect 
them; it: is that it undermines and perverts the 
very conditions of society. And to the question in 
this aspect I invite your most serious considera- 
tion. 

What is law, or at least what ought it to be? 
What is its rational and moral mission? Is it not 
to hold the balance even between all rights, all lib- 
erties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice 
to rule among all? Is it not.to prevent and to 
repress oppression and robbery wherever they are 
found? 

And are you not shocked at the immense, radi- 
cal, and deplorable innovation introduced into the 
eo by compelling the law itself to commit the 
very crimes to punish which is its especial mission 
—by turning the law in principle and in fact against 
liberty and property ? 

You deplore the condition of modern society. 
You groan over the disorder which prevails in insti- 
tutions and ideas. But is it not-your system which 
has perverted everything, both institutions and 
ideas? 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 839 


What! the law is no longer the refuge of the 
oppressed, but the arm of the oppressor! The law 
is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no 
longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false 
weights and measures! And you wish to have 
society well regulated ! 

Your system has written over the entrance of the 
legislative halls these words: ‘‘ Whoever acquires 
any influence here can obtain his share of the legal- 
ized. pillage.” 

And what has ey the result? All classes of 
society have become demoralized by shouting 
around the Bates of the palace: “‘Gave me a share 
of the spoils.” 

After the revolution of February, when univer- 
sal suffrage was proclaimed, I had for a moment 
hoped to have heard this sentiment: “No more 
pillage for any one, justice for all.” And. that 
would have been the real solution of the social 
problem. Such was not the case. The doctrine 
of protection had for generations too profoundly 
corrupted the age, public sentiments. and ideas. 
No. In making inroads upon the National Assem- 
bly, each class, in accordance with your system, 
has endeavored to make the law an instrument of 
rapine. There have been demanded heavier im- 
posts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, 
the mght to assistance, the guaranty of incomes 
end of minimum wages, gratuitous instruction, 


B40 SPOLIATION AND. LAW. 


loans to industry, étc., etc. ; in short, every one has 
endeavored'to live and thrive at the expense of 
others And upon what have. these ‘pretensions 
been based?’ Upon the authority of your ‘prece- 
dents. Whatsophisms have been invoked ? Those 
that you have propagated for two centuries. © With 
you they have talked about equalizing the conditions 
of labor. With you' they have declaimed against 
ruinous competition. With ‘you they. have ridi- 
—culed the let alone principle, that is to. say, liberty. 

With you they have said that the law should not 
confine itself to being just, but should come to the 
aid of suffering industries, protect the feeble against 
the strong, secure profits to individuals at the 
expense of the community, etc, etc. ‘In short, 
according to the expression of Mr. Charles Dupin, 
socialism has come to establish the theory of rob- 
bery. It has done: what you have done, and that 
which you desire the professors of political economy 
to do for you. eh f | 

Your cleverness is in vain, Messteurs Protéctionists, 
it is useless to lower your tone, to boast of your 
latent generosity, or to deceive your opponents by 
sentiment. You cannot prevent logic -from being 
logic. 

You cannot prevent Mr. Bijlault from telling the 
legislators, ‘ You have grar-ted favorg to one, you 
must grant them to all.” 

You cannot prevent Mr Cremieux from telling 


% 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 341 


the legislators: “You have enriched the manufac- 
turers, you must enrich the common people.” 

You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to 
the legislators: ‘‘ You cannot refuse to do for the 
suffering classes that which an have done for the 
privileged classes.” | 

You cannot even prevent the leader of your 
orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from saying to the legisla- 
tors: “I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies 
for the workingmen’s savings banks ;” and support- 
ing his motion in this manner: 


“Ts this the first example of the kind that our legislation offers ? 
Would you establish the system that the State should encourage 
everything, open at its expense courses of scientific lectin” 
subsidize the fine arts, pension the theatre, give to the ‘classes 
already favored by fortune ‘the benefits of superior education, 
the most varied amusements, the enjoyment of the arts, and 
repose for old age ; give all this to those who know nothing of 
privations, and compel those who have no share in these benefits 
' to bear their part of the burden, while refusing them A Sige 
even the necessaries of life? ~ 

‘Gentlemen, our French society, our customs,: our laws, are 
30 made that the intervention of the State, however much it may 
be regretted, is seen everywhere, and nothing seems to be stable 
or durable if the hand‘of the State is not manifest in it,::.It is the 
State that makes the Sevres porcelain, and the Gobelin tapestry. 
It-is the State that periodically gives expositions of the works 
of our artists, and of the products of our manufacturers; it is the 
State which recompenses those who raise its cattle and breed 
its fish. All this costs a great deal, It isa tax to which every 
one is obliged to contribute. Everybody, do you understand? 

_And what direct benefit do the people derive from it? Of what 


842 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


direct benefit to the people are your porcelains and tapestries, 
aud your expositions? This general principle of resisting what 
you call a state of enthusiasm we can understand, although you 
yesterday voted a bounty for linens; we can understand it on 
the condition of consulting the present crisis, and especially on 
the condition of your proving your impartiality, _If itis true that, 
by the means I have indicated, the State thus far seems to have 
more directly benefited the well-to-do classes than those who 
are poorer, it is necessary that this appearance should be re- 
moved. Shall it be done by closing the manufactories of tapes- 
try and stopping the exhibitions? Assuredly not; but by giving 
the poor a direct share in this distribution of benefits,” 


In this long catalogue of favors granted to some 

at the expense of all, one will remark the extreme 
prudence with which Mr. Mimerel has left the tariff 
favors out of sight, although they are the most 
explicit manifestations of legal spoliation. All the 
orators who supported or opposed him have taken 
upon themselves the same reserve. It is very 
shrewd! Possibly they hope, by giving the poor a 
direct participation in this distribution of benefits, to - 
save this great iniquity by which they profit, but 
of which they do not whisper. 

They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that 
after having realized a partial spoliation by the 
establishment of customs duties, other classes, by 
the establishment of other institutions, will not 
attempt to realize universal spoliation ? 

I know very well you always have a sophism 
ready. You say: “The favors which the law 
grants us are not given to the manufacturer, but to 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 343 


manufactures. The profits which it enables us to 
receive at the expense of the consumers are merely 
a trust placed in our hands. They enrich us, it is 
true, but our wealth places us in a position to ex: 
pend more, to extend our establishments, and falls 
like refreshing dew upon the laboring classes.” 

Such is your language, and what I most lament 
is the circumstance that your miserable sophisms 
have so perverted public opinion that they are 
appealed to. in support of all forms of legalized 
spoliation. The suffering classes also say. ‘ Let 
us by act of the Legislature help ourselves to the 
goods of others. We shall be in easier circum- 
stances as the result of it; we shall buy more 
wheat, more meat, more cloth, and more iron; and 
that which we receive from the public taxes will 
return in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and 
landed proprietors.” | 

But, as I have already said, I will not to-day dis- 
cuss the economical effects of legal spoliation. 
Whenever the protectionists desire, they will find 
me ready to examine the’ sophisms of the ricochets, 
which, indeed, may be invoked in support of all 
species of robbery and fraud. 

We will confine ourselves to the political and 
moral effects of exchange legally deprived of 
liberty. 

I have said: The time has come to know what 
the law is, and what it ought to be. 


3 2 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 


If you make the law for all citizens a palladium 
of liberty and of property ; if it is only the organiza- 
tion of the individual law of self-defense, you will 
establish, upon the foundation of justice, a govern- 
ment rational, simple, economical, comprehended 
by all, loved by all, useful to all, supported by all, 
entrusted with a responsibility perfectly defined and 
carefully restricted, and endowed with imperishable 
strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests of 
individuals or of classes, you make the law an 
instrument of robbery, every one will wish to make 
laws, and to make them to his own advantage. 
There will be a riotous crowd at the doors of the 
legislative halls, there will be a bitter conflict 
within ; minds will be in anarchy, morals will be 
shipwrecked ; there will be violence in party organs, 
heated elections, accusations, recriminations, jeal- 
ousies, inextinguishable hates, the public forces 
placed at the service of rapacity instead of repress- 
ing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the 
false effaced from all minds, as the notion of 
justice and injustice will be obliterated from all 
consciences, the government. responsible for every- 
thing and bending under the burden of its respon- 
sibilities, political convulsions, revolutions without 
end, ruins oyer which all forms of socialism and 
communism attempt to establish themselves; these 
are the evils which must necessarily flow from the 
perversion of law. 


SPOLIATION AND LAW. 345 


Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for 
which you have prepared the way by making use 
of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that is 
to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not 
declaim against socialism; you establish it. Do 
not cry out against communism; you create it. 
And now you ask us Economists to make youa 
theory which will justify you! Morbleu/ make it 
yourselves, . 


PART LV. 


ad 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST: | 


My object in this treatise is to examine into the 
real nature of the Interest of Capital, for the purpose 
of proving that it is lawful, and explaining why it 
should be perpetual. ‘This may appear singular, 
and yet, I confess, 1 am more afraid of being too 
plain than too obscure. I.am afraid I may weary 
the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it is 
no easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts, 
with which we have to deal, are known to every 
one by personal, familiar, and daily. experience. 

But, then, you will say, “ What is the use of this 
treatise? Why explain what everybody knows ?” 

But, although this problem appears at first sight 
so very simple, there is more in it than you might 
suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by an 

; (347) 


348 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


example. Mondor lends an instrument of labor 
to-day, which will be entirely destroyed in a week, 
yet the capital will not produce the less interest to 
Mondor or his heirs, through all eternity. Reader, 
can you honestly say that you understand the 
reason of this? . 

It would be a waste of time to seek any satis- 
factory explanation from the writings of economists. 
They have not thrown much light upon the reasons 
of the existence of interest. For this they are not 
to be blamed; for at the time they wrote, its law- 
fulness was not called in question. Now, however, 
times are altered; the case is different. Men, who 
consider themselves to be in advance of their age, 
have organized an active crusade against capital and 
interest; it is the productiveness of capital which 
they are attacking; not certain abuses in the 
administration of it, but the principle itself. 

A journal has been established to serve as a 
vehicle for this crusade. It is conducted by M. 
Proudhon, and has, it is said, an immense circula- 
tion. ‘The first number of this periodical contains 
the electoral manifesto of the people. Here we 
read, “The productiveness of capital, which is con- 
demned by Christianity under the name of usury, is 
the true cause of misery, the true principle of desti- 
tution, the eternal obstacle to the establishment of 
the Republic.” 

Another journal, La Ruche Populaire, after hay- 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 849 


ing said some excellent things on labor, adds, 
“But, above all, labor ought to be free; that is, it 
ought to be organized in such a manner, that money 
lenders and patrons, or masters, should not be pard 
for this liberty of labor, this right of labor, which 
is raised to so high a. price by the trafficers of 
men.” The only thought that I notice here, is that 
expressed by the words in italics, which imply a 
denial of the right to interest. The remainder of’ 
the article explains it. 

It is thus that the democratic Socialist, oe 
expresses himself: | 

“The revolution will always have to be recom- 
menced, so long as we occupy ourselves with con- 
sequences only, without having the logic or the 
courage to attack the principle itself. This prici- 
ple is capital, false property, interest, and usury, 
which by the old zégume, is made to weigh upon 
labor. 

“Hyver since the aristocrats invented the incredi- 
ble fiction, that capital possesses the power of 
reproducing tiself, the workers have been at. the 
mercy of the idle. 

“ At the end of a year, will you find an addi- 
tional crown in a bag of one hundred shillings? 
At the end of fourteen years, will your shillings 
have doubled in your bag ? 

“ Will a work of industry or of skill produce 
another, at the end of fourteen years? 


350 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


“Let us begin, then, by demolishing tlus fatal 
fiction.” 

I have quoted the above, merely for the sake of 
establishing the fact, that many persons consider 
the productiveness of capital a false, a fatal, and an 
iniquitous principle. But quotations are super- 
fluous; it is well known that the people attribute - 
their sufferings to what they call the trafficing in 
man by man. In fact, the phrase tyranny of capital 
has become proverbial. 

I believe there is not aman in the world, who 
is aware of the whole importance of this ques- 
tion : 

‘Ts the interest of capital natural, just, and law- 
ful, and as useful to the payer as to the receiver?” 

You answer, no; I answer, yes. Then we differ 
entirely ; but it is of the utmost importance to 
discover which of us is in the right; otherwise we 
shall incur the danger of making a false solution 
of the question, a matter of opinion. If the error 
is on my side, however, the evil would not be so 
great. It must be inferred that I know nvthing 
about the true interests of the masses, or the march 
of human progress; and that all my arguments are 
but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of 
the revolution will certainly not be arrested. 

But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thoré 
are deceiving themselves, it follows, that they are 
leading the people astray—-that they are showing 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. Sox 


them the evil where it does not exist; and thus 
giving & false direction to their ideas, to their anti- 
pathies, to their dislikes, and to their attacks. It 
follows, that the misguided people are rushing into 
a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory 
would be more fatal than defeat, since, according 
to this supposition, the result would be the realiza- 
tion of universal evils, the destruction of every 
means of emancipation, the consummation of its 
own misery. 

This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowl- 
edged, with perfect good faith. ‘“ The foundation 
stone,” he told me, “ of my system is the gratuitous- 
ness of credit. If I am mistaken in this, Socialism 
is a vain dream.” I add, it is a dream, in which 
the people are tearing themselves to pieces. Will 
it, therefore, be a cause for surprise, if, when they 
awake, they find themselves mangled and bleeding ? 
Such a danger as this is enough to justify me fully, 
if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself 
to be led into some trivialities and some prolixity. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


T address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, 
more especially to those who have enrolled them- 
selves under the banner of Socialist democracy. I 
proceed to consider these two questions: 

Ist. Is it consistent with the nature of things, 
and with justice, that capital should produce 
interest ? 


352 CAPITAL AND INTEREST, 


2nd. Is it consistent with the nature of things, 
and with justice, that the interest of capitalshould 
be perpetual ? ‘ : 

The working men of Paris will certainly acknowl- 
edge that a more important subject could not be 
discussed. : 

Since the world began, it has been allowed, at 
least in part, that capital ought to produce interest. 
But latterly it has been affirmed, that herein lies 
the very social error which is the cause of pauper- 
ism and inequality. It is, therefore, very essential 
to know now on what ground we stand. 

For if levying interest. from capital is a sin, the 
workers have a right to reyolt against social order, 
as it exists; it is in vain to tell them that they 
ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, 
it would be a hypocritical recommendation. When 
on the one side there is a strong man, poor, and a 
victim of robbery—on the other, a weak man, but 
rich, and a robber—it is singular enough, that we 
should say to the former, with a hope of persuad- 
ing him, “ Wait till your oppressor voluntarily 
renounces oppression, or fill it shall cease of itself.” 
This cannot be; and. those who tell us that capital 
is, by nature, unproductive, ought to know that 
they are provoking a terrible and immediate 
struggle. : 

If, on the.contrary, the interest of capital is natu- 
ral, lawful, consistent with the general good, as 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 8538 


favorable to the borrower as to the lender, the 
economists who deny it, the tribunes who traffic in 
this pretended social wound, are leading the work- 
men into a senseless and unjust struggle, which can 
have no other issue than the misfortune of all. In | 
fact, they are arming labor against capital. So 
much the better, if these two powers are really 
antagonistic ; and may the struggle soon be ended ! 
But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the 
greatest evil which can be inflicted on society. You 
see, then, workmen, that there is not a more im- 
portant question than this: “Is the interest of 
capital lawful or not?” In the former case, you 
must immediately renounce the struggle to which 
you are being urged; in the second, you must carry 
it on bravely, and to the end. 

Productiveness of capital—perpetuity of interest. 
These are difficult questions. I must endeavor to 
make myself clear. And for that purpose I shall 
have recourse to example rather than to demonstra- 
tion; or rather, J shall place the demonstration in 
the example. I begin by acknowledging, that, at 
first sight, it may appear strange that capital should 
pretend to a remuneration; and, above all, to a per- 
petual remuneration. You will say, “ Here are 
two men. Oneof them works from morning till 
night, from one year’s end to another; and if he 
consumes all which he has gained, even by superior 
energy, he remains poor When Christmas comes, 


354 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


he is no forwarder than he was at the beginning of 
the year, and has no other prospect but to begin 
again. ‘The other man does nothing, either with 
his hands or his head ; or, at least, if he makes use 
of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure ; it is 
allowable for him to do nothing, for he has an 
income. He does not work, yet he lives well; he 
has everything in abundance, delicate dishes, sump- 
tuous furniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even 
consumes, daily, things which the workers have 
been obliged to produce by the sweat of their 
brow; for these things do not make themselves; 
and, as far as he is concerned, he has had no hand 
in their production. It is the workmen who have 
caused this corn to grow, polished this furniture, 
woven these carpets; it is our wives and daughters 
who have spun, cut out, sewed, and embroidered 
these stuffs. We work, then, for him and our- 
selves; for him first, and then for ourselves, if 
there is anything left. But here is something more 
striking still. If the former of these two men, the 
worker, consumes.within the year any profit which 
may have been left him in that year, he is always 
at the point from which he started, and his destiny 
condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual 
circle, and a monotony of exertion. Labor, then, 
is rewarded only once. But if the other, the ‘ gen- 
tleman,’ consumes his yearly income in the year, 
he has, the year after, in those which follow, and 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST 355 


through all eternity, an income always equal, inex- 
haustible, perpetual. Capital, then, is remunerated, 
not only once or twice, but an indefinite number 
of times! So that, at the end of a hundred years, 
a family, which has placed 20,000 francs, at five 
per cent., will have had 100,000 franes; and this 
will not prevent it from having 100,000 more, in 
the following century. In other words, for 20,000 
francs, which represent its labor, it will have levied, 
in two centuries, a tenfold value on the labor of 
others. In this social arrangement, is there nota 
monstrous evil to be reformed? And this is not 
all. If it should please this family to curtail its 
enjoyments a little—to spend, for example, only 
900 francs, instead of 1,000—it may, without any 
labor, without any other trouble beyond thot of 
investing 100 francs a year, increase its capital and 
its Income in such rapid progression, thxs i6 will 
soon be in a position to consume as muck ag a hun- 
dred families of industrious workmen. Does not 
all this go to prove, that society itself has in its 
bosom a hideous cancer, which ought t» be eradi- 
eated at the risk of some temporary suffszing ?” 
These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritat- 
ing reflections which must be excit(d in your 
minds by the active and superficial creisade which 
is being carried on against capital and terest. On 
the other hand, there are moments in which, J am 


\ 


856 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


convinced, doubts are awakened in your minds, 
and scruples.in your conscience. You say to your- 
selves sometimes, “ But to assert that capital ought 
not to produce interest, is to say that he who has 
created instruments of labor, or materials, or provi- 
sions of any kind, ought to yield them up without 
compensation. Is that just? And then, if it isso, 
who would lend these instruments, these materials, 
these provisions? who would take care of them? 
who.even would create them? Every one would 
consume his proportion, and the human race would 
never advance a step. Capital would be no longer 
formed, since there would be no interest in forming 
it. It will become exceedingly scarce.. A singular 
step toward. gratuitous loans! A singular means 
of improving the condition of borrowers, to make 
it impossible for them to borrow at any price! 
What would become of labor itself? for there will 
be no money advanced, and not one single kind of 
labor can be mentioned, not even the chase, which 
can be pursued without money in hand. And, as. 
for ourselves, what would become of us? What! 
we are not to be allowed to borrow, in order to 
work in the prime of life, nor to lend, that we may 
enjoy repose in its decline? The law will rob us 
of the prospect of laying by a little property, 
because it will prevent us from gaining any advan- 
tage from it. It will deprive us of all stimulus to 
save at the present time, and of all hope of repose 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST, 857 


for the future. It is useless to exhaust ourse.ves 
with fatigue; we must abandon the idea of leaying 
our sons and daughters a little property, since 
modern science renders it useless, for we should 
become trafficers in men if we were to lend it on 
interest. Alas! the world which these persons 
would open before us as an imaginary good, is still 
more dreary and desolate than that which they 
condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished 
from the latter.” Thus in all respects, and in every 
point of view, the question is a serious one. Let 
us hasten to arrive at a solution. 

Our civil code has a chapter entitled, ‘On the 
manner of transmitting property.” I do not think 
it gives a very complete nomenclature on this point. 
When a man by his labor has made some useful 
thing—in other words, when he has created a value 
—it can only pass into the hands of another by one 
of the following modes: asa gift, by the right of 
inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word 
upon each of these, except the last, although it 
plays a greater part. in the world than we may 
think. | 

A gift, needs no definition. It is essentially 
voluntary and spontaneous. It depends exclu- 
sively upon the giver, and the receiver cannot 
be said to have any right toit. Without a doubt, 
morality and religion make it a duty for men, espe- 
cially the rich, to deprive themselves voluntauily 


358 CAPITAL AND INTE! EST. 


of that which they possess, in favor of their less 
fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral 
obligation. If it were to be asserted on principle, 
admitted in practice, or sanctioned by law, that 
every man has aright to the property of another, 
the gift would have no merit, charity and gratitude 
would be no longer virtues. Besides, such a doc- 
trine would suddenly and universally arrest labor 
and production, as severe cold congeals water and 
suspends animation, for who would work if there 
was no longer to be any connection between labor 
and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy 
has not treated of gifts. It has hence been con- 
cluded that it disowns them, and that it is therefore 
a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous 
accusation. ‘That science which treats of the laws 
resulting from the reciprocity of services, had no 
business to inquire into the consequences of gener- 
osity with respect to him who receives, nor into its 
effects, perhaps still more precious, “yn him who 
gives; such considerations belong: evidently to the 
science of morals. We must allow the sciences to 
have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of 
denying or undervaluing what they look upon as 
foreign to their department. 

The right of inheritance, against which so much 
has been objected of late, is one of the forms of 
gift, and assuredly the most natural of all. That 
which a man has produced, he may consume, ex 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 359 


change, or give; what can be more natural than 
that he should give it to his children? It is this 
power, more than any other, which inspires him 
with courage to labor and to save. Do you know 
why the principle of right of inheritance is thus 
called in question? Because it is imagined that 
the property thus transmitted is plundered from 
the masses. This is a fatal error; political econ- 
omy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, 
that all value produced is a creation which does no 
harm to any person whatever. For that reason, it 
may be consumed, and, still more, transmitted, 
without hurting any one; but I shall not pursue 
these reflections, which do not belong to the subject. 
xchange is the principal department of political 
economy, because it is by far the most frequent 
method of transmitting property, according to the 
free and voluntary agreements of the laws and 
effects of which this science treats. 3 
Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of 
services. The parties say between themselves, 
“Give me this, and I will give you that ;” or, ‘‘ Do 
this for me, and I will do that for you.” It is well 
to remark (for this will throw a new light on the 
notion of value), that the second form is always 
implied in the first.. When it is said, “ Do this for 
me, and I will do that for you,” an exchange of 
service for service is proposed. Again, when it is 
said, “Give me this, and I will give you that,” it 


860 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


is the same as saying, “I yield to you what I have 
done, yield to me what you have done.” The 
labor is past, instead of present; but the exchange 
is not the less governed by the comparative valua- 
tion of the two services; so that it is quite correct 
to say, that the principle of value is in the services 
vendered and received on account of the produc- 
tions exchanged, rather than in productions them- 
selves. if 

In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged — 
directly. There is a medium, which is termed 
money. Paul has completed a coat, for which he 
wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little 
oil, a visit from a doctor, a ticket for the play, ete. 
The exchange cannot be effected in kind; so what 
does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat for 
some money, which is called sale ; then he exchanges 
this money again for the things which he wants, 
which is called purchase ; and now, only, has the 
reciprocity of services completed its circuit; now, 
only, the labor and the compensation are balanced 
in the same individual,—‘I have done this for 
society, it has done that forme.” In a word, it is 
only now that the exchange is actually accom- 
plished. Thus, nothing can be more correct than 
this observation of J. B. Say: “Since the intro- 
duction of money, every exchange is resolved into 
two elements, sale and purchase. It is the reunion 
of these two elements which renders the exchange 
complete.” 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 861 


We must remark, also, that the constant appear- 
ance of money in every exchange has overturned 
and misled all our ideas; men have ended in think- 
ing that money was true riches, and that to multiply 
it was to multiply services and products. Hence 
the prohibitory system ; hence paper money; hence 
the celebrated aphorism, ‘‘ What one gains the 
other loses ;” and all the errors which have ruined 
the earth, and imbrued it with blood.* After 
much research it has been found, that in order to 
make the two services exchanged of equivalent 
value, and in order to render the exchange equitable, 
the best means was to allow it to be free. How- 
ever plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the 
State might be, it was soon perceived that it is 
always oppressive to one or other of the contracting 
parties. When we look into these subjects, we are 
always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that 
equal value results from liberty. We have, in fact, 
no other means of knowing whether, at a given 
moment, two services are of the same value, but 
that of examining whether they can be readily and 
freely exchanged. Allow the State, which is the 
same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the 
other, and from that moment all the means of 
appreciation will be complicated and entangled, 
instead of becoming clear. It ought to be the part 


_ ® This error will be combated in a pamphlet, entitled ‘* Carsed Money.* 
32 | 


362 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress 
artifice and fraud; that is, to secure lberty, and 
not to violate it. I have enlarged a little upon 
exchange, although loan is my principal object; 
my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan . 
an actual exchange, an actual service rendered by 
the lender, and which makes the borrower liable to 
an equivalent service,—two’ services, whose com- 
parative value can only be appreciated, like that of 
all possible services, by freedom. Now, if it is so, 
the perfect lawfulness of what is called house-rent, 
farm-rent, interest, will be explained and justified. 
Let us consider the case of loan. 

Suppose two men exchange two services or two 
objects, whose equal value is beyond all dispute. 
Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, “Give 
me ten sixpences, I will give you a five-shilling 
piece.” We cannot imagine an equal value more 
unquestionable. When the bargain is made, neither 
party has any claim upon the other. The ex- 
changed services are equal. Thus it follows, that 
if one of the parties wishes to introduce into the 
bargain an additional clause, advantageous to him- 
self, but unfavorable to the other party, he must 
agree to a second clause, which shall re-establish 
the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would 
be absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of 
compensation. This granted, we will suppose that 
Peter, after having said to Paul, ‘Give me ten 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 363 


sixpences, I will give you a crown,” adds, “ you 
shall give me the ten sixpences now, and I will give 
you the crown-piece in a year ;” it is very evident 
that this new proposition alters the claims and 
advantages of the bargain; that it alters the pro- 
portion of the two services. Does it not appear 
plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of Paula 
new and an additional service; one of a different 
kind? Is it not as if he had said, ‘“‘ Render me 
the service of allowing me to use for my profit, 
for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and 
which you might have used for yourself”? And 
what good reason have you to maintain that Paul is 
bound to render this especial service gratuitously ° 
that he has no right to demand anything more in 
consequence of this requisition; that the State 
ought to interfere to force him to submit? Is it 
not incomprehensible that the economist, who 
preaches such a doctrine to the people, can reconcile 
it with his principle of the reciprocity of services? 
Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to 
do so by a desire to place, side by side, two objects 
of exchange, of a perfect and indisputable equality 
of value. I was anxious to be prepared for objec- 
tions; but, on the other hand, my demonstration, 
would have been more striking still, if I had illus- 
trated my principle by an agreement for exchanging 
the services or the productions themselves. 
Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a 


864 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are 
disposed to exchange them even-handed, without 
excess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be 
settled by a lawyer. At the moment of each tak- 
ing possession, the ship-owner says to the citizen, 
“Very well; the transaction is completed, and 
nothing can prove its perfect equity better than 
our free and voluntary consent. Our conditions 
thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical 
modification. You shall let me have your house 
to-day, but I shall not put you in possession of my 
ship fora year; and the reason I make this demand 
of you is, that, during this year’ of delay, I wish 
to use the vessel.” That we may not be embar- 
rassed by considerations relative to the detorioration 
of the thing lent, I will suppose the ship-owner to 
add, “I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand 
over to you the vessel in the state in which it is to- 
day.” I ask of every candid man, I ask of M. 
Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to 
answer, “The new clause which you propose en- 
tirely alters the proportion or the equal value of 
the exchanged services. By it, I shall be deprived, 
for the space of a year, both at once of my house 
and of your vessel. By it, you will make use of both. 
If, in the absence of this clause, the bargain was 
just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to 
me. It stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to 
you. You are requiring of me a new seryice; I 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 365 


have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a 
compensation, an equivalent service.” If the par- 
ties are agreed upon this compensation, the princi- 
ple of which is incontestable, we can easily distin- 
guish two transactions in one, two exchanges of 
service in one. First, there is the exchange of the 
house for the vessel; after this, there is the delay 
granted by one of the parties, and the compensa- 
tion correspondent to this delay yielded by the 
other. These two new services take the generic 
and abstract names of credit and interest. But 
names do not change the nature of things; and I 
defy any one to ‘dare to maintain that there. exists 
here, when all is done, a service for a service, or a 
reciprocity of services. ‘To say that one of these 
services does not challenge the other, to say that 
the first ought to be rendered gratuitously, without 
injustice, is to say that injustice consists: in the 
reciprocity of services—that Justice consists in one 
of the parties giving and not Norah which is a 
contradiction in terms. 

To give an idea of interest and its mechanism, 
allow me to make use of two or three anecdotes. 
But, first, I must say a few words upon capital. 

There are some persons who imagine that capital 
is money, and this is precisely the reason why they 
-deny its productiveness; for, as M. Thoré says, 
crowns are not endowed with the power of repro- 
ducing themselves. But it is not true that capital 


366 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


and money are the same thing. Before the dis- 
covery of the precious metals, there were capitalists 
in the world; and I venture to say that at that 
time, as now, everybody was a capitalist, to a certain 
extent. 

What is capital, then? It is composed of three 
things : ; 

Ist. Of the materials upon which men operate, 
when these materials have already a value commu- 
nicated by some human effort, which has bestowed 
upon them the principle of remuneration—wool, 
flax, leather, silk, wood, ete. 

2nd. Instruments which are used for working— 
tools, machines, ships, carriages, ete. 

8rd. Provisions which are consumed during 
labor—victuals, stuffs, houses, etc. 

Without these things, the labor of man would be 
unproductive, and almost void; yet these very 
things have required much work, especially at first. 
This is the reason that so much value has been 
attached to the possession of them, and also that it 
is perfectly lawful to exchange and to sell them, to 
make a profit of them if used, to gain remuneration 
from them if lent. 

Now for my anecdotes. 


THE SACK OF CORN. 


Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and 
obliged to earn his bread by day-labor, became, 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 367 | 


nevertheless, by some inheritance, the owner of a 
fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceed- 
ingly anxious to cultivate it. ‘ Alas!” said he, 
“to make ditches, to raise fences, to break the soil, 
. to clear away the brambles and stones, to plough it, 
to sow it, might bring me a living in a year or two; 
but certainly not to-day, or to-morrow. It is im- 
possible to set about farming it, without previously 
saving some provisions for my subsistence until 
the harvest; and I know, by experience, that pre- 
paratory labor is indispensable, in order to render 
present labor productive.” The good Mathurin 
was not content with making these reflections. He 
resolved to work by the day, and to save something 
from his wages to buy a spade and a sack of corn; 
without which things, he must give up his fine 
agricultural projects. He.acted so well, was so 
active and steady, that he soon saw himself in pos- 
session of the wished-for sack of corn. ‘TI shall 
take it to the mill,” said he, ‘and then I shall have 
enough to live upon till .my field is covered with a 
rich harvest.” Just as he was starting, Jerome 
came to borrow his treasure of him. “If you will 
lend me this sack of corn,” said Jerome, “ you-will 
do me a great service; for I have some very lucra- 
tive work in view, which I cannot possibly under- 
take, for want of provisions to live upon until it is 
finished.” ‘TI was in the same case,” answered 
Mathurin, “and if I have now secured bread for 


868 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


several months, it is at the expense of my arms 
and my stomach. Upon what principle of justice 
can it be devoted to the realization of your enter- 
prise instead of mine ?” 

You may well believe that the bargain was a long 
one. However, it was finished at length, and on 
these conditions : 

First. Jerome promised to give back, at the end 
of the year, a sack of corn of the same quality, 
and of the same weight, without missing a single 
grain, “This first clause is perfectly just,” said he, 
“for without it Mathurin would give, and not lend.” 

Secondly. He engaged to deliver five litres on 
every hectolitre. ‘This clause is no less just than 
the other,” thought he; “for without it Mathurin 
would do mea service without compensation; he 
would inflict upon himself a privation—he would 
renounce his cherished enterprise—he would enable 
me to accomplish mine—he would cause me to 
enjoy for a year the fruits of his savings, and all 
this gratuitously. Since he delays the cultivation 
of his land, since he enables me to realize a lucra- 
tive labor, it is quite natural that I should let him 
partake, in a certain proportion, of the profits 
which I shall gain by the sacrifice he makes of his 
own.” 

On his side, Mathurin, who was something of a 
scholar, made this calculation: “Smee, by virtue 
of the first clause, the sack of corn will return to 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST, 869 


meat the end of a year,” he said to himself, “I 
shall be able to lend it again; it will return to me at 
the end of the second year; I may lend it again, 
and so on, to alleternity. However, I cannot deny 
that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular 
that I should be perpetually the owner of a sack 
of corn, although the one I have lent has been con- 
sumed for ever. But this is explained thus: It 
will be consumed in the service of Jerome. It will 
put it into the power of Jerome to produce a supe- 
rior value; and, consequently, Jerome will be able 
to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, 
without having suffered the slightest injury; but 
quite the contrary. And as regards myself, this 
value ought to be my property, as long as I do not 
consume it myself; if I had used it to clear my 
Jand, I should have received it again in the form 
of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, and 
shall recover it in the form of repayment. 

“From the second clause, I gain another piece of 
information. At the end of the year, I shall be in 
possession of five litres of corn, over the 100 that I 
have just lent. If, then, I were to continue to 
work by the day, and to save a part of my wages, 
as I have been doing, in the course of time I should 
be able to lend two sacks of corn; then three; then 
four; and when I should have gained a sufficient 
number to enable me to live on these additions of 
five litres over and above each, I shall be at liberty 

33 


870 - CAPITAL AND INTEREST . 


to take a little repose in my old age. But how is 
this? In this case, shall I not be living at the 
expense of others? No, certainly, for it has been 
proved that in lending I perform a service ; I com- 
plete the labor of my borrowers; and only deduct 
a trifling part of the excess of production, due to my 
lendings and sayings. It is a marvellous thing, 
that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures 
no one, and for which he cannot be envied without 
injustice.” 
THE HOUSE. 


Mondor had a house. In building it, he had 
extorted nothing from any one whatever. He 
owed it to his own personal labor, or, which is the 
same thing, to labor justly rewarded. His first 
care was to make a bargain with an architect, in 
virtue of which, by means of a hundred crowns a 
year, the latter engaged to keep the house in con- 
stant good repair. Mondor was already congratu- 
lating himself on the happy duys which he hoped 
to spend in this retreat, declared sacred by our 
Constitution. But Valerius wished to make it his 
residence. ‘ How can you think of such a thing ?” 
said Mondor; “itis I who have built it; it has~ 
cost me ten years of painful labor, and now you 
would enjoy it!” They agreed to refer the matter 
to judges. They chose no profound economists— 
there were none such in thecountry. But they found 


“CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 3871 


some just and sensible men; it all comes to the 
same thing: political economy, justice, good sense, 
are all the same thing. Now here is the decision 
made by the judges: If Valerius wishes to occupy 
Mondor’s house for a year, he is bound to submit 
to three conditions. The first is, to quit at the end 
of the year, and to restore the house in good repair, 
saving the inevitable decay resulting from mere 
duration. The second, to refund to Mondor the 
800 francs, which the latter pays annually to the 
architect to repair the injuries of time; for these 
injuries taking place whilst the house is in the ser- 
vice of Valerius, it is perfectly just that he should: 
bear the consequences. The third, that he should 
render to Mondor a service equivalent to that which 
he receives. As to this equivalence of services, 
it must be freely discussed between Mondor and 
Valerius. 
THE PLANE. 


A very long time ago there lived, in a poor vil- 
lage, a joiner, who was a philosopher, as all my 
heroes are, in their way. James worked from 
morning till night with his two strong arms, but 
his brain was not idle, for all that. He was fond 
of reviewing his actions, their causes, and their 
effects. He sometimes said to himself, “ With my 
hatchet, my saw, and my hammer, I can make only 
coarse furniture, and can only get the pay for such. 


872 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. © 


If I only had a plane, I should please my custom- 
ers more, and they would pay me more. It is quite 
just; I can only expect services proportioned to 
those which I render myself. Yes! I am resolved, 
I will make myself a plane.” 

However, just as he was setting to work, James 
reflected further: “I work for my customers 300 
days in the year. If I give ten to making my 
plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days 
will remain forme to make my furniture. Now, 
in order that I be not the loser in this matter, I 
must gain henceforth, with the help of the plane, 
as much in 290 days, as I now do in 300. I must 
eyen gain more; for unless I do so, it would not be 
worth my while to venture upon any innovations.” 
James began to calculate. He satisfied himself 
that he should sell his finished furniture at a price 
which would amply compensate for the ten days 
devoted to the plane; and when no doubt remained 
on this point, he set to work. I beg the reader to 
remark, that the power which exists in the tool to 
increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis 
of the solution which follows. 

At the end of ten days, James had in his pos- 
session an admirable plane, which he valued all the 
more for having made it himselff He danced for 
joy—for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he 
reckoned all the profits which he expected to derive 
from the ingenious instrument ; but more fortunate 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 373 


than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of 
saying good-bye to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, 
together. He was building his fine castles in the 
air, when he was interrupted by his acquaintance 
William, a joiner in the neighboring village. 
William having admired the plane, was struck with 
the advantages which might be gained from it. He 
said to James : 

W. You must do me a service. 

J. What service ? 

W. Lend me the plane for a year. 

As might be expected, James at this ieee 
did not fail to cry out, ‘‘How can you think of 
such a thing, William? Well, if I do you this 
service, what will you do for me in return ?” 

W. Nothing. Don’t you know that a loan 
ought to be gratuitous? Don’t you know that 
eapital is naturally unproductive? Don’t you know 
fraternity has been proclaimed? If you only do 
me a service for the sake of receiving one from me 
in return, what merit would you have? 

J. William, my friend, fraternity does not mean 
that all the sacrifices are to be on one side; if so, 
Ido not see why they should not be on yours. 
Whether a loan should be gratuitous I don’t know; 
but I do know that if I were to lend you my plane 
for a year, it would be giving it to you. To tell 
you the truth, that is not what I made it for. 

W. Well, we will say nothing about the modern 


374 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


maxims discovered by the Socialist gentlemen. I 
ask you to do me a service; bi service do you 
ask of me in return ? 

J. TVirst, then, in a year, the plane will be done 
for, it will be good for nothing. It is only just, 
that you should let me have another exactly like 
it; or that you should give me money enough to 
get it repaired ; or that you should supply me the 
ten days which I must devote to replacing it. 

W. This is perfectly just. I submit to these 
conditions. I engage to return it, or to let you 
have one like it, or the value of the same. I think 
you must be satisfied with this, and can require 
nothing further. 

J. I think otherwise, I made the plane for 
myself, and not for you. JI expected to gain some 
-advantage from it, by my work being better finished. 
and better paid, by an improvement in my condi- 
tion. What reason is there that I should make 
the plane, and you should gain the profit? I 
might as well ask you to give me your saw and 
hatchet! What a confusion! Is it not natural 
that each should keep what he has made with his 
own hands, as well as his hands themselves? ‘Tio 
‘use without recompense the hands of another, I call 
slavery ; to use without recompense the plane of 
another, can this be called fraternity ? 

W. But, then, I have agreed to return it to you 
at the end of a year, as well polished and as sharp 
a8 lt 1s now. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 375 


J. We have nothing to do with next year; we 
are speaking of this year. I have made the plane 
for the sake of improving my work and my condi- 
tion; 1f you merely return it to me in a year, it is 
you who will gain the profit of it during the whole 
of that time. Iam not bound todo you sucha 
service without receiving anything from you in 
return; therefore, if you wish for my plane, inde- 
pendently of the entire restoration already _bar- 
gained for, you must do me a service which we will 
now discuss; you must grant me remuneration. 

And this was done thus: William granted a 
remuneration calculated in such a way that, at the 
end of the year, James received his plane quite 
new, and in addition, a compensation, consisting of 
anew plank, for ie, advantages of which he had 
deprived himself, and which he had yielded to his 
friend. 

It was impossible for any one acquainted with 
the transaction to discover the slightest trace in it 
of oppression or injustice. 

The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the 
year, the plane came into James’ possession, and 
he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it a third 
and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of 
his son, who still lends it. Poor plane! how many 
times has it changed, sometimes its blade, some- 
times its handle. It is no longer the same plane 
but it has always the same value, at least for James’ 


376 ‘CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


posterity. Workmen! let us examine into these 
little stories. 

I maintain, first of all, that the sack of corn and 
the plane are here the type, the model, a faithful 
representation, the symbol, of all capital; as the 
five litres of corn and the plank are the type, the 
model, the representation, the symbol, of all inter- 
est. This granted, the following are, it seems to 
me, a series of consequences, the justice of which 
it is impossible to dispute. 

Ist. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower 
to the lender is a natural, equitable, lawful remu- 
neration, the just price of a real service, we may 
conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature 
of capital to produce interest. When this capital, 
as in the foregoing examples, takes the form of an 
instrument of labor, it is clear enough that it ought 
to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who 
has devoted to it his time, his brains, and his 
strength. Otherwise, why should he have made 
it? No necessity of life can be immediately 
satisfied with instruments of labor; no one eats 
planes or drinks saws, except, indeed, he be a con- 
jurer. If aman determines to spend his time in the 
production of such things, he must have been led 
to it by the consideration of the power which these 
instruments add to his power; of the time which 
they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which 
they give to his labor; ina word, of the adyan- 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST, B77 


tages which they procure for him. Now, these 
advantages, which have been prepared by labor, 
by the sacrifice of time which might have been 
used in a more immediate manner, are we bound, 
as soon as they are ready to be enjoyed, to confer 
them gratuitously upon another? Would it be an 
advance in social order, if the law decided thus, 
and citizens should pay officials for causing such 
a law to be executed by force? I venture to say, 
that there is not one amongst you who would 
support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, to 
systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaim- 
ing that there are men born to render, and others 
born to receive, gratuitous services. Granted, then, 
that interest is just, natural, and lawful. 

2nd. A second consequence, not less remarkable 
than the former, and, if possible, still more conclu- 
sive, to which I call your attention, is this: inlerest 
ws not injurious to the borrower. I mean to say, the 
obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to 
pay aremuneration for the use of capital, cannot 
do any harm to his condition. Observe, in fact, 
that James and William are perfectly free, as 
regards the transaction to which the plane gave 
occasion. ‘I'he transaction cannot be accomplished 
without the consent of the one as well as of the 
other. The worst which can happen is, that James 
may be too exacting; and in this case, William, 
refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By 


¢; 
Are) CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


the fact of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that 
he considers it an advantage to himself; he proves, 
that after every calculation, including the remune- 
ration, whatever it may be, required of him, he 
still finds it more profitable to borrow than not to 
borrow. He only determines to do so because he 
has compared the inconveniences with the advan- 
tages. He has calculated that the day on which 
he returns the plane, accompanied by the remunera- 
tion agreed upon, he will have effected more work, 
with the same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit 
will remain to him, otherwise he would not have 
borrowed. ‘T'he two services of which we are speak- 
ing are exchanged according to the law which 
governs all exchanges, the law of supply and de- 
mand. ‘The claims of James have a natural and 
impassable limit. This is the point in which the 
remuneration demanded by him would absorb all 
the advantage which William might find in making 
use of a plane. In this case, the borrowing would 
not take place. William would be bound either to 
make a plane for himself, or to do without one, 
which would leave him in his original condition. 
He borrows, because he gains by borrowing. I 
know very well what will be told me. You will 
say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may 
be governed by necessity, and be obliged to submit 
to a harsh law. 

It may beso. As to errors in calculation, they 


* 
CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 379 


belong to the infirmity of our nature, and to argue 
from this against the transaction in question, is 
objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginable 
transactions, In every human act. Error is an acci- 
dental fact, which is incessantly remedied by expe- 
rience. In short, everybody must guard against it. 
As far as those hard necessities are concerned, 
‘which force persons to burdensome borrowings, it 
is clear that these necessities exist previously to 
the borrowing. If William is in a situation in 
which he cannot possibly do without a plane, and 
must borrow one at any price, does this situation 
result from James havirig taken the trouble to 
make the tool? Does it not exist independently 
of this circumstance? However harsh, however 
severe James may be, he will never render the sup- 
posed condition of William worse than it is, 
Morally, it is true, the lender will be to blame; 
but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself 
can never be considered responsible for previous 
ne¢essities, which it has not created, and which it 
relieves, to a certain extent. 

But this proves something to which I shall 
return. ‘The evident interests of William, repre- 
senting here the borrowers, there are many Jameses 
and planes. In other words, lenders and capitals. 
It is very evident, that if William can say to 
James—‘' Your demands are exorbitant; there is 
no lack of planes in the world;” he will bein a 


# 
~—- 880 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


better situation than if James’ plane was the only 
one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is no maxim 
more true than this—service for service. But let 
us not forget, that no service has a fixed and abso- 
lute value, compared with others. The contracting 
parties are free. Hach carries his requisitions to 
the farthest possible point; and the most favorable 
circumstance for these requisitions is the absence’ 
of rivalship. Hence it follows, that if there is a 
class of men more interested than any other, in 
the formation, multiplication, and abundance of 
capitals, it is mainly that of the borrowers. Now, 
since capitals can only be formed and increased by 
the stimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let 
this class understand the injury they are inflicting 
on themselves, when they deny the lawfulness of 
interest, when they proclaim that credit should be 
gratuitous, when they declaim against the pre- 
tended tyranny of capital, when they discourage 
saving, thus forcing capitals to become scarce, and 
consequently interests to rise. 
srd. The anecdote I have just related enables 
you to explain this apparently singular phenome- 
non, which is termed the duration or perpetuity 
of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James 
has been able, very lawfully, to make it a condition 
that it should be returned to him, at the end of a 
year, in the same state in which it was when he 
lent it, is it not evident that he may, at the expira- 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 881 


tion of the term, lend it again on the same condi- 
tions. If he resolves upon the latter plan, the 
plane will return to him at'the end of every year, 
and that without end. James will then bein a 
condition to lend it without end; that is, he may 
derive from it a perpetual interest. It will be said, 
that the plane will be worn out. That is true; but 
it will be worn out by the hand and for the profit 
of the borrower. The latter has taken into account 
this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he 
ought, the consequences. He has reckoned that 
he shall derive from this tool an advantage, which 
will allow him to restore it in its original condition, 
after having realized a profit from it. As long as 
James does not use this capital himself, or for his 
own advantage—as long as he renounces the advan- 
tages which allow it to be restored to its original 
condition—he will have an incontestable right to 
have it restored, and that independently of interest. 

Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have 
shown, James, far from doing any harm to William, 
has done him a service in lending him his plane for 
a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to 
a second, a third, a fourth borrower, in the subse- 
quent periods. Hence you may understand, that 
the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as 
useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We 
may go still further. It may happen, that James 
lends more than a single plane. It 1s possible, 


882 CAPITsL AND INTEREST. 


that by means of working, of saving, of privations, 
-of order, of ‘activity, he may come to lend a multi- 
tude of planes and saws; that is to say, to do a 
multitude of services. I insist upon this point— 
that if the first loan has been a social good, it will be 
the same with all the others; for they are all simi- 
lar, and based upon the same principle. It may 
happen, then, that the amount of all the remune- 
rations received by our honest operative, in ex- 
change for services rendered by him, may suffice 
to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man 
in the world who has a right to live without work- 
ing. I do not say that he would be doing right 
to give himself up to idleness—but I say, that he 
has a right to do so; and if he does so, it will be 
at nobody’s expense, but quite the contrary. If 
society at all understands the nature of things, it 
will acknowledge that this man subsists on services 
which he receives certainly (as we all do), but 
which he lawfully receives in exchange for other 
services, which he himself has rendered, that he — 
continues to render, and which are quite real, inas- 
much as they are freely and voluntarily accepted. 
And here we have a glimpse of one oi the finest 
harmonies in the social world. LI allude to leisure: 
not that leisure that the warlike and tyrannical 
classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of 
the workers, but that leisure which is the lawful 
and innocent fruit of past activity and economy. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST, _ 883 


In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall 
shock many received ideas. But see! Is not 
leisure an essential spring in the social machine? 
Without it, the world would never have had a 
Newton, a Pascal, a Fenelon; mankind would 
have been ignorant of all arts, sciences, and of those 
wonderful inventions, prepared originally by inves- 
tigations of mere curiosity ; thought would have 
been inert—man would have made no progress. On 
the other hand, if leisure could only be explained 
by plunder and oppression—if it were a benefit 
which could only be enjoyed unjustly, and at the 
expense of others, there would be no middle path 
between these two evils; either mankind would be 
reduced to the necessity of stagnating in a vegeta- 
ble and stationary life; in eternal ignorance, from 
the absence of wheels to its machine—or else it 
would have to acquire these wheels at the price of 
inevitable injustice, and would necessarily present 
the sad spectacle; in one form or other, of the 
antique classification of human beings into Masters 
and Slaves. I defy any one to show me, in this 
case, any other alternative. We should be com- 
pelled to contemplate the Divine plan which gov- 
erns society, with the regret of thinking that it 
presents a deplorable chasm. ‘The stimulus of 
progress would be forgotten, or, which is worse, this 
stimulus would be no other than injustice itself 
But, no! God has not left such a chasm in his 


884 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


work of love. We must take care not to disregard 
his wisdom and power; for those whose imper- 
fect meditations cannot explain the lawfulness of 
leisure, are very much like the astronomer who said, 
at a certain point in the heavens there ought to 
exist a planet which will be at last discovered, for 
without it the celestial world is not harmony, but 
discord. 

Well, I say that, if well understood, the history 
of my humble plane, although very modest, is sufi- 
cient to raise us to the contemplation of one of the 
most consoling, but least understood, of the social 
harmonies. 

It is not true that we must choose between the 
denial or the unlawfulness of leisure; thanks to 
rent and its natural duration, leisure may arise 
from labor and saving. Itis a pleasing prospect, 
which every one may have in view; a noble recom- 
pense, to which each may aspire. It makes its 
appearance in the world; it distributes itself pro- 
portionably to the exercise of certain virtues; it 
opens all the avenues to intelligence; it ennobles, it 
raises the morals; it spiritualizes the soul of human- 
ity, not only without laying any weight on those 
of our brethren whose lot in life devotes them to 
severe labor, but relieving them gradually from 
the heaviest and most repugnant part of this labor. 
It is enough that capitals should be formed, accu- 
mulated, mrltiplied; should be lent on conditions 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST, 885 


less and less burdensome ; tkat they should descend, 
penetrate into every social circle, and that, by an 
admirable progression, after having liberated the 
lenders, they should hasten the liberation of the 
borrowers themselves. For that end, the laws and 
customs ought to be favorable to economy, the 
source of capital. It is enough to say, that the 
first of all these conditions is, not to alarm, to 
attack, to deny that which is the stimulus of saving 
and the reason of its existence—interest. ; 

As long as we see nothing passing from hand to 
hand, in the character of loan, but provisions, mate- 
rials, instruments, things indispensable to the pro- 
ductiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far 
_ exhibited will not find many opponents. Who 
knows, even, that I may not be reproached for 
having made great effort to burst what may be 
said to be an open door. But as soon as cash 
makes its appearance as the subject of the transac- 
tion (and itis this which appears almost always), 
immediately a crowd of objections are raised. 
Money, it will be said, will not reproduce itself, 
like your sack of corn; it does not assist labor, like 
your plane; it does not afford an immediate satis- 
faction, like your house. It is incapable, by its 
nature, of producing interest, of multiplying itself, 
and the remuneration it demands is a_ positive 
extortion. 

Who cannot see the sophistry of this? Who 

34 


386 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


Goes not see that cash is only a transient form, 
which men give at the time to other values, to reat 
objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilita- 
ting their arrangements? Inthe midst of social 
complications, the man who is in a condition to 
lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the . 
borrower wants. James, it is true, has a plane; 
but, perhaps, William wants a saw. They cannot 
negotiate; the transaction favorable to both cannot 
take place, and then what happens? It happens 
that James first exchanges his plane for money ; he 
lends the money to William, and William ex- 
changes the money forasaw. The transaction is 
no longer a simple one; it is decomposed into 
two parts, as I explained above in speaking of 
exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its 
nature; it still contains all the elements of.a direct 
loan. James has still got rid of a tool which was 
useful to him; William has still received an instru- 
ment which perfects his work and increases his pro- 
fits ; there is still a service rendered by the lender, 
which entitles him to receive an equivalent service. 
from the borrower; this just balance is not the less 
established by free mutual bargaining. The very 
natural obligation to restore at the end of the term 
the entire value, still constitutes the ea of the 
duration of interest. 

At the end of a year, says M. Thoré, all you find 
an additional crown in a bag of a hundred pounds ? 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 387 


No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of 
sre huadred pounds on the shelf. In such a case, 
neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, would 
reproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake 
of leaving the money in the bag, nor the plane on 
the hook, that they are borrowed.. The plane is 
borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a 
plane. And if it is clearly proved that this tool 
enables the borrower to obtain profits which he 
would not have made without it, if it is proved that 
the lender has renounced creating for himself this 
excess of profits, we may understand how the stipu- 
lation of a part of this excess of profits in favor of 
the lender, is equitable and lawful. 

Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in 
human transactions, is the source of the most fatal 
errors. JI intend devoting an entire pamphlet to . 
this subject. From what we may infer from the 
writings of M. Proudhon, that which has led him 
to think that gratuitous credit was a logical and. 
definite consequence of social progress, is the 
observation of the phenomenon which shows a 
decreasing interest, almost in direct proportion to 
the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it 1s, 
in fact, cent. per cent., and more, Then it descends 
to eighty, sixty, fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, 
four, and three per cent. In Holland, it has even 
been as low as two percent. Hence it is concluded, 
that “in proportion as society comes to perfection, 


888 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


it will descend to zero by the time civilization is 
complete. In other words, that which character- 
izes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. 
When, therefore, we shall have abolished interest, 
we shall have reached the last step of progress.” 
This is mere sophistry, and as such false arguing 
may contribute to render popular the unjust, dan- 
gerous, and destructive dogma, that credit should 
be gratuitous, by representing it as coincident with 
social perfection, with the reader’s permission I will 
examine in a few words this new view of the ques- 
tion. 

What is interest? It is the service rendered, 
after a free bargain, by the borrower to the lender, 
in remuneration for the service he has received by 
the loan. By what law is the rate of these remu- 
nerative services established? By the general law 
which regulates the equivalent of all services ; that 
is, by the law of supply and demand. 

The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller 
is the service rendered by yielding it or lending it. 
The man who gives me a glass of water in the 
Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as 
he who allows me one in the desert of Sahara. If 
there are many planes, sacks of corn, or houses, in a 
country, the use of them is obtained, other things 
being equal, on more favorable conditions than if 
they were few; for the simple reason, that the len- 
der renders in this case a smaller relative service. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 889 


It is not surprising, therefore, that the more 
abundant capitals are, the lower is the interest. 

Is this saying that it will ever reach zero? No; 
because, I repeat it, the principle of a remuneration 
is in the loan. To say that interest will be anni- 
hilated, is to say that there will never be any motive 
for saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form 
new capitals, nor even to preserve the old ones. 
in this case, the waste would immediately bring a 
void, and interest would directly reappear. 

In that, the nature of the services. of which we 
are speaking does not differ from any other, Thanks 
to industrial progress, a pair of stockings, which 
used to be worth six francs, has successively been 
worth only four, three, and two. No one can say 
to what point this value will descend; but we can 
affirm, that it will never reach zero, unless the 
stockings finish by producing themselves spentane- 
ously. Why? Because the principle of remune- 
ration is in labor; because he who works for 
another renders a service, and ought to receive a 
service. If no one paid for stockings, they would 
cease to be made; and, with the scarcity, the price 
would not fail to reappear. 

The sophism which I am now combating has 
its root in the infinite divisibility which belongs to 
value, as it does to matter. 

It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well 
known to all mathematicians, that, through all eter- 


390 - CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


nity, fractions may be taken from a weight without 
the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient 
that each successive fraction be less than the preced- 
ing one, in a determined and regular proportion. 

There are countries where people apply them- ’ 
selves to increasing the size of horses, or diminish- 
ing in sneep the size of the head. It is impossible 
to say precisely to what point they will arrive in 
this. No one can say that he has seen the largest 
horse or the smallest sheep’s head that will ever 
appear in the world. But he may safely say that 
the size of horses will never attain to infinity, nor 
the heads of sheep to nothing. 

In the same way, no one can say to what point the 
price of stockings nor the interest of capitals will 
come down; but we may safely affirm, when we 
know the nature of things, that neither the one nor 
the other will ever arrive at zero, for labor and 
capital can no more live without recompense than 
a sheep without a head. 

The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce” them- 
selves, then, to this: since the most skillful agricul- 
turists are those who have reduced the heads of 
sheep to the smallest size, we shall have arrived at 
the highest agricultural perfection when sheep have 
no longer any heads. ‘Therefore, in order to realize 
the perfection, let us behead them. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 391 


T have now done with this wearisome discussion. 
Why is it that the breath of false doctrine has 
made it needful to examine into the intimate nature 
of interest? I must not leave off without remark- 
ing upon a beautiful moral which may be drawn 
from this law: “The depression of interest is pro- 
portioned to the abundance of capitals.” This law 
being granted, if there is a class of men to whom 
if Is more important than to any other that capitals 
be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, and 
superabound, it is certainly the class which borrows 
them directly or indirectly; it is those men who 
operate upon materials, who gain assistance by 
struments, who live upon provisions, produced 
and economized by other men. 

Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a popula- 
tion of a thousand inhabitants, destitute of all 
capital thus defined. It will assuredly perish by 
the pangs of hunger. Let ussuppose a case hardly 
less cruel. Let us suppose that ten of these savages 
are provided with instruments and provisions suff- 
cient to work and to live themselves until harvest 
time, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty 
Jaborers. The inevitable result will be the death 
of nine hundred, human beings. It is clear, then, 
that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by 
want, will crowd upon the supports which would only 
maintain a hundred, the ten capitalists will be mas- 
ters of the market. They will obtain labor on the 


892 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, 
or the highest bidder. And observe this—if these 
capitalists entertain such pious sentiments as would 
induce them to impose personal privations on them- 
selves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some 
of their brethren, this generosity, which attaches to 
morality, will be as noble in its principle as useful 
in its effects. Butif, duped by that false philosophy 
which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle 
with economic laws, they take to remunerating 
Jabor largely, far from doing good, they will do 
harm. They will give double wages, it may be 
But then, forty-five men will be better provided for, 
whilst. forty-five others will come to augment the 
number of those who are sinking into the grave. 
Upon this supposition, it is not the lowering of 
wages which is the mischief, it is the scarcity of 
capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the 
effect of the evil. I may add, that they are toa 
certain extent the remedy. It acts in this way; 
it distributes the burden of suffering as much as it 
can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity 
of sustenance permits. 

Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, 
there should be a hundred, two hundred, five hun- 
dred—is it not evident that the condition of the 
whole population, and, above all, that of the “ pro- 
-létaires,”* will be more and more improved? Is 


* Common people. 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 393 


it not evident that, apart from every consideration 
of generosity, they would obtain more work and 
better pay for it ?—that they themselves will be in 
a better condition to form capitals, without being 
able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing facility 
of realizing equality and well-being? Would it 
not be madness in them to admit such doctrines, 
and to act in a way which would drain the source 
of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of 
saving? Let them learn this lesson, then; doubt- 
less, capitals are good for those who possess them : 
who denies it? But they are also useful to those 
who have not yet been able to form them; and it 
is important to those who have them not, that 
others should have them. : 
Yes, if the “prolétaires” knew their true inter- 
ests, they would seek, with the greatest care, what 
circumstances are, and what*are not favorable to 
saving, in order to favor the former and to dis- 
courage the latter. They would sympathize with 
every measure which tends tothe rapid formation 
of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters 
of peace, liberty, order, security, the union of 
classes and peoples, economy, moderation in publie 
expenses, simplicity in the machinery of Govern- 
ment; for it is under the sway of all these circum- 
stances that saving does its work, brings plenty~ 
within the reach of the masses, invites those per- 
sons to become the formers of capital who were 
35 ; 


394 ‘CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon 
hard conditions. They would repel with energy 
the warlike spirit, which diverts from its true course 
so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing 
spirit, which deranges the equitable distribution of 
riches, in the way by which liberty alone can 
realize it; the multitude of public services, which, 
attack our purses only to check our liberty ; and, 
in short, those subversive, hateful, thoughtless 
doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent its forma- 
tion, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, 
to the special disadvantage of the workers, who 
bring it into operation. Well, and in this respect 
is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? 
Is it not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown 
into the world of business, on the one hand; and, 
on the other, the advancement of the fatal theories 
to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, 
have almost penetrated into the regions of the 
Legislature, have everywhere ..ised. the rate of 
interest? Is it not evident, that from that time 
the “prolétaires’ have found greater difficulty in 
procuring those materials, instruments, and provi- 
sions, without which labor is impossible? Is it 
not that which has caused stoppages; and do not 
stoppages, in their turn, lower wages? ‘Thus there 
is a deficiency of labor to the “ prelétaires,” from 
the same cause which loads the objects they con- 
sume with an increase of price, in consequence of 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 395 


the rise of interest. High interest, low wages, 
means in other words that the same article preserves 
its price, but that the part of the. capitalist has 
invaded, without profiting himself, that of the 
workman. 

A friend of mine, commissioned to make inquiry 
into Parisian industry, has assured me that the 
manufacturers have revealed to him a very striking 
fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, 
‘how much insecurity and uncertainty injure the 
formation of capital. It was remarked, that during 
the most distressing period, the popular expenses of 
mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, 
the fighting lists, the public houses, and tobacco 
depdts, were as much frequented as in prosperous” 
times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves 
explained this phenomenon thus: “ What is the 
use of pinching? Who knows what ‘will happen to 
us? Who knows that interest will not be abol- 
ished? Who knows but that the State will become 
a universal and gratuitous lender, and that it will 
wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might 
expect from our savings?” Well! I say, that if 
such ideas could prevail during two single years, it 
would be enough to turn our beautiful France into 
a 'Turkey—misery would become general and 
endemic, and, most assuredly, the poor would be 
the first upon whom it would fall. 

Workmen! They talk to you a great deal upon 


\ 


396 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


the artificial organization of labor ;—do you know 
why they do so? Because they are ignorant of 
the laws of its natural organization ; that is, of the 
wonderful organization which results from liberty. 
You are told, that liberty gives rise to what is 
called the radical antagonism of classes; that it 
creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests 
—-that of the capitalists and that of the “ prolé- 
taires.” But we ought to begin by proving that 
this antagonism exists by a law of nature; and 
afterwards it would remain to be shown how far 
the arrangements of restraint are superior to those 
of liberty, for between liberty and restraint I see 
no middle path. Again, it would remain to be 
proved, that restraint would always operate to your 
advantage, and to the prejudice of the rich. But, 
no; this radical antagonism, this natural opposi- 
tion of interests, does not exist. It is only an evil 
dream of perverted and intoxicated imaginations. 
No; a plan so defective has not proceeded from the 
Divine Mind. To affirm it, we must begin by deny- 
ing the existence of God. And see how, by means 
of social laws, and because men exchange amongst 
themselves their labors and their productions, see 
what a harmonious tie attaches the classes, one to 
the other! There are the landowners; what is 
their interest? That. the soil be fertile, and the sun 
beneficent: and what is the result? That corn 
ubounds, that it falls in price, and the advantage 


CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 397 


turns to the profit of those who have had no patrimo- 
ny. There are the manufacturers; what is their con- 
stant thought? To perfect their labor, to increase the 
power of their machines, to procure for themselves, 
upon the best terms, the raw material. And to 
what does all this tend? To the abundance and 
low price of produce; that is, that all the efforts 
of the manufacturers, and without their suspecting 
it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of 
which each of you is one. It is the same with 
every profession. Well, the capitalists are. not 
exempt from this law. They are very busy mak- 
ing schemes, economizing, and turning them to 
their advantage. This is all very well; but the 
more they succeed, the more do they promote the 
abundance of capital, and, as a necessary conse- 
quence, the reduction of interest? Now, who is it © 
that profits by the reduction of interest? Is it not 
the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the 
things which the capitals contribute to produce? 

It is, therefore, certain that the final result of 
the efforts of each class, is the common good of all. 

You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. 
Ido not deny that each one endeavors to draw 
the greatest possible advantage from his situation ; 
but, in this sense, he realizes only that which is 
possible. Now, it is never more possible for capi- 
tals to tyrannize over labor, than when they are 
scarce ; for then it is they who make the law—it is 


398 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 


they who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this 
tyranny more impossible to them, than when they 
are abundant; for, in that case, it is labor which 
has the command. 

Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill- 
will, unfounded hatreds, unjust suspicions. ‘These 
depraved passions injure those who nourish them 
in their hearts. ‘This is no declamatory morality ; 
it is a chain of causes and effects, which is capable 
of being rigorously, mathematically demonstrated. 
It is not the less sublime, in that it satisfies the 
intellect as well as the feelings. 

T shall sum up this whole dissertation with these 
words: Workmen, laborers, “ prolétaires,” desti- 
tute and suffering classes, will you improve your 
condition? You will not succeed by strife, insur- 
rection, hatred, and error. But there are three 
things which cannot perfect the entire community 
without extending these benefits to yourselves; 
these things are—peace, liberty, and security. 


THE AMERICAN FREE-TRADE LEAGUE 


Fo.tps TuHaT Every man should have the right to exchange the products 
of his labor, wherever he can obtain the most for it. 


Tuat, He should be free to seek his own welfare in his own way, so long 
as he does not infringe the rights of others. 


‘Twat, So far as he is deprived of these rights, he is in slavery. 


Ir RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE AND DIGNITY OF LABOR, because La- 
bor is the source of prosperity. It holds, therefore, that to tax the 
necessities of the laborer, with a view to benefit the manufacturing 
capitalist, is to strike a blow at the foundation of the country’s pros- 
perity. ; 

Ir Houtps TuHar Every Country has its peculiar natural advantages, and 
that to produce what can be most easily produced in it, and to ex- 
change such products for what is more easily produced elsewhere, is 
the most profitable exertion of its industry. 


/ 


Tuat, The true means of encouraging Home INpbusrry and of lessening 
poverty, is to remove every obstacle to the free exchange of the pro- 
ducts of labor. — 


Ir Houips Tuart, “The Protective System,” so-called, is only ignorant 
National selfishness, which defeats its own ends, 


THAT, It is contrary to the wise and beneficent laws of Providence. 


THAT, It diverts Capital and Labor from the most efficient occupations to 
others proved less efficient by their need of artificial support. 


THAT, It is an odious form of class legislation. 
- THAT, It is a fertile source of social, sectional, and international discord, 
THAT, It encourages commercial dishonesty and official corruption. 


Ir Hops Tuat, Free-Trade with all the world will conduce to our high- 
est welfare, and is preéminently worthy of the American people, who 
should be foremost in breaking down every social and commercial 
barrier. : 


THE AMERICAN FREE-TRADE LEAGUE submits to taxation and duties to 
meet the necessities of Government, but denounces as robbery and 
tyranny all taxation for the benefit of special classes. 


THE LEAGUE urges all who agree with these principles, to unite with it in 
obtaining emancipation for Industry and Commerce. 


saoirilet 


2 


A Ar i 
ie i iy OTe eS 
| : “oo, 


HOOD (Thomas). The Complete Works of. With four- 
teen engravings on steel, and seven hundred Illus- 
trations on wood, from his own designs. Aldine 

edition. In seven volumes, crown 8vo, cloth....... $15 75 

Hatt cali Sextraiic cs. ecco cele ores whereas. aces -. 28 00 

** Hood’s verse, whether serious or comic, whether serene, like a cloudless 


autumn evening, or sparkling with puns, like a frosty January midnight with 
stars, was ever pregnant with materials for thought.’’— D. M. Moir 


_ . * Hisname is destined to be a household word with all who speak the Eng- 
lishlanguage.’’—London Quarterly Review. 


Poetical Works. People’s edition. One vol..... 3 00 


——_——Prose Works. People’s edition. One vol....... 8:00 
——_—— Prose and Poetical Works. People’s edition. 
OE VOLS IN DOX pc, ssilyn > Shain tip oe sib Pde ag rh Gee Cee 6 00- 


BRACEBETT (Anna C.), formerly principal of the Normal 
School of St. Louis. The Education of American 
Girls. Tomo, cloth ao oad ee ee sats. shove thig Ss ae 

CONTENTS. 

1. Introduction, Anna C. Brackett. 2%. A Fair Chance, L. H. Stone. 

3. The Other Side, Caroline H. Dall. 4. A Mother’s Thought, Edna D. 

Cheney. 5. English and American Girls, Mary E. Beedy. 6 Mental 

Action and Physical Strength, Dr. Mary Putnam Jacobi. 7. Michigan 

University, Sarah Dix Hamlin. 8, Mt. Holyoke Seminary, Mary O. 

Nutting. 9. Oberlin College, A. F. Johnston. 10. Vassar College, 

Dr. Alida C. Avery. 11. Antioch College. 12. Review of “Sex in 

Education.”’ 

“The highest praise that can be awarded the beok is the desire which its 
perusal will inevitably create, that a copy might be placed in the hands of every 
mother in the land.’"—New Haven Palladium. 

‘“‘The book opens with an essay, or a series of three essays, by Miss Bracke tt 
on Physical, Intellectual, and Moral Educ:ition. These contain some of the most 
exhaustive thoughts supported by extensive experience and knowledge, which 
we have anywhere seen.’’— Boston Commonwealth. 

*“‘Contains more wisdom on the subject of woman’s education than all the 
books heretofore published.’’—S¢. Louis Demoerat. 


HART (James Morgan, LL.D.), German Universities. A 
Record of Personal Experience, and a Critical Com- 
parison of the System of Higher Education in Ger- 
many with those of England and the United States. 
12mo, cloth..... Ee a AQ > Pals Suerte Nei Ne. ne Be 


DE VERE (M. Schele.) Professor in the University of 
Virginia. Wonders of the Deep. Third edition, 
1dnd0, Cloth yotsace urs ee eae FS, Ma eRe Fyn it Ao 1 50 
Tlugtrated,'cloth, gilt. .)ccno shy cue = cided @ aga wean 2 00 
‘* One of the freshest, most scientific, and at the same time, mo-t popular 
and delightful books of the kind we have ever read.”—s¢. John Telegrapi. 
Stray Leaves from the Book of Nature. New 
edition, illustrated. 12mo.cloth..... ........ Pere lag es | 
“The book is peculiarly fascinating.’’— Cricago Journal. 
Romance of American History. Early Annals. 
P26, CLotiy OK EFA ISS woes poeve esis ay eis waive ses =, Eg 3 9 1-5 
Modern Magic. 12mo, cloth extra.............. 2 00 


‘‘The bookis a fascinating one, and affords much curious information, even 
for those who do not believe in the theories ’"’— Utica Herald. 


G. P. PUTNAWM’S SONS, Publishers, 
182 Fifth Avenue, New York. 


oe 


FASCINATING BOOKS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. 


ees 


-Moonfolk: A True AccouNT oF THE HOME OF THE 
Farry TA.LEs. By JANE G. AUSTIN. _ Illustrated 

by 65 designs drawn and engraved on wood Py ve 

J. Linton, 8vo: cloth extra, - $I 75 


‘* The most fascinating juvenile since ‘ Alice in ondesland: 779 ae 
Christian Unton. 


History of My Friends; or, Home Life with Ani- 
mals. By A. ACHARD. Translated from the French. 
With 12 full page illustrations. 12mo: cloth extra, $1 50 


The Girlhood of Shakespeare’s Heroines: in a 
series of Tales. By MARY COWDEN CLARKE. Large 
12mo; illustrated. 2 vols. in box (sold separately), $4 00 

** Her imagination, retracing of influence and development is 
symmetrical, consistent and skillful, and she has woven her char- 
acters into charming stories.”—JV. Y. Evening Mail. 

The Shakespeare Treasury of Wisdom and Know- 
ledge. By CHAS. W. STEARNS, M.D. In an elegant 
volume, tinted paper. Cloth extra, - - = $200 

** Full of valuable ideas.’’"— Boston Commonwealth. 


** The scholar and student will find Dr. Stearn’s volume an inval- 
uable guide and help.’’—Providence Fournal. 


Poetry for Home and School. Edited by Anna C. 
BRACKETT and IpA M. Etor. A selection of short 
pieces selected from the best standard English and 


American Authors. Square 16mo: cloth, - 31 25 
**An idea carried out with discrimination and intelligence.” 
Nation. 
‘This book deserves the attention of every school committee, 
and parents will search long without finding so good a collection for 
fireside reading.” —Christzan Union. 


The Silver Treasury. The Holiday Edition of 
POETRY FOR HOME AND SCHOOL. Cloth, extra 
gilt, illustrated, with side stamp in silver, - - $1 75 
The Book is divided in two parts: the first containing poems 
designed for children from six to ten years of age; in the second are 
more serious and thoughtful poems for older children. 
‘** An exquisite little gift-book.”’ 


Wonders of the Deep. By M. ScHELE DE VERE, 
Professor in the University of Virginia. Third 


Edition. 12mo: cloth, illustrated, $1 50; gilt, $1 75 
** One of the freshest, most scientific, and at the same time most 
popular and delightful hooks of is kind we have ever read.’’—.S/. 
Fokn's Telegraph. 


oie. PO ENAM'S WSONS, 


182 FirTH AvE., NEw York. 


§ 
: 


earns 


s 


ante 


ta 2, 4 
Roce ore 


FE a : - - nt Moe: , ‘ "is : eT cae . Z re" 
: : . . Pal id 2 J SNe 2 eae 
? ; : 


: Eta ig 
soe ahioe 
setae 

eRe 
Re tersare reas: 
gn reer Se 


ate 


* 


a 
13) 


